>> also today we're going to have a news conference for you on c-span shortly announcing the president's choice to lead the transportation security administration. that should be coming up shortly. the president is now speaking in philadelphia. you can follow that on c-span. again here a news conference just ahead on immigration reform. >> introduceing our father who will bewith again the press conference. >> let us pray. dear lord, we are today here to ask and demand immigration

reform and we ask you to the holy spirit be us and all of the organizations that we are calling today to help our community and the people to come to washington to demand an immigration reform and stop the deportations. [speaking in native language] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

>> today, i join my colleagues from immigrant and civil rights organization from across the country to denounce the cruel and imhumane immigration enforcement practices that are tearing our communities and our families apart. these are the same enforcement practices that we marched against during the bush administration. these are the same enforcement practices that we with now are forced to denounce and march against under the obama administration. many of us celebrated the historic election of barack obama and believed that his election would bring justice to immigrants and their families. we believe the then candidate for president barack obama when he promised to fix our broken aid he would do this within their first year in office.

he said he would stop the raids and enforcement practice that defuated from our american values of justice and equalitity. yet, in the first year of the obama administration, immigrations has deported 387,000 people. you can see the increase this n this chart. -- in this chart. this is a record high number of deportation and an increase of close to 50% from fiscal year 2008. this is an average of 1,000 deportations per day. every day, detention and removal operations hold an average of 32,000 people in detention centers across this country. immigration audits of employers have tripled resulting in whole industries and of their immigrant and native-born labor force. finally, this administration has

continued agreement with local law enforcement agencies that are clearly violated the civil and human rights of entire communities. millions of citizens and new americans voted for change, and what they got as far as immigration issues are concerned, are just more -- much more of the same. we have waited for over a year without legislative progress on comprehensive immigration reform. without reform, there's still no relief for millions of families across the country. so, mr. president and the congress,ing we are bringing our commands to your backyard on march 21 in our march for america, change takes courage mobilization. our expectation that by march 21st, president obama, you exercise your leadership by helping move forward a blueprint for bipartisan immigration reform bill in a real time line for getting a markup in the senate judiciary committee. in the mean time, we command an

immediate stop to all deportation, because each one of these deportations, each one of these numbers equals a life destroyed and a family devastate ed. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> now to tell us her story, to tell us how immigration enforcement has impacted her family, i want to introduce ms.

vacsa. >> hello, i'm a u.s. citizen. i'm 13 years old. to start off, i would like to talk about my mother. to me she's my hero. she is strong and independent, a hard worker, tries to provide for her children, and makes an honest living. my mother is my rock. someone that motivates me and pushes me to accomplish my dreams. she came to the u.s. for a better future. one day immigration came pounding on the door looking for my mother. i was scared.

at the moment, she was not home. they tried to interrogate me and my step dad. they arrived at 6 a.m. and left at 6:40 a.m. i had to get ready to go to school. on my way to school, i was wondering if i was ever going to see my mother again. during my first period class, -- during my first period class, that same day, i broke down in tears. the next day when i was returning from school, i had noticed that i was being followed. i noticed that in the corner of my block there was a black van with one of the i.c.e. officers that had come the previous day. on the other side came a read

range rover passing by very slowly. they had noticed that someone opened the house door. as i walked in, i was telling my step dad that i was being followed. we approached the window and we see i.c.e. approaching the property. they had asked my step dad to step outside. moments later, i opened the door and saw him handcuffed. they took him to downtown detention center and asked him more questions. they had detained him the whole day. without him and my mom, i was alone and being taken care of my friends and family. i couldn't be in an environment where i was being followed. i couldn't be without my mother. children my age shouldn't be living a life like i did. i couldn't do stuff, go out with my friends without being followed. kids my age are planning for their future. thinking what they want to make of themselves. put yourself in a situation that i had to go through.

it's not easy. in november 2008, when this situation happened, barack obama became president. my family had hoped that he was going to stop family separation, that he was going to do something. show us that you are against family separation, and that you are a true president, a president that keeps his word. like it says in most shirts that have the president's image, hope. you are our hope. hope that you are going to make a change. thank you. [applause] >> thank you beatrice. this is happening despite our many contributions of the immigrant. our next speaker is artemio

arreola. >> thank you. immigrant workers have been the backbone of americas. immigrants have always done the hard work that was asked of them, and we always will. today we are hear to say we are tired of a broken immigration systems that forces workers to live in the shadows because our elected leaders don't have the courage to fix the system excite the hate and fear amongers. we are tired of the bureaucracy that keeps families apart for decades and we are tired of being made promises to and tolding our crying children like beatrice as they watch their parents being taken away and deported. we know immigrants and other people of color are the first

people often to lose their jobs. we also know that immigration reform will be an economic boost to this country. the center for american progress has reported that passing an immigration reform bill would actually put $1.5 trillion into our economy over the next decade. the cato institute has said immigrants increased the economy and raised the standard of living of american citizens. just last week, ben bernanke, chairman of the federal reserve board, listed immigration reform as one the issues that congress must take up to improve the nation's lagging economy. so today as our economy struggles out of a recession. we know we have an economic recovery package right here in immigration reform. and yet we are spending billions and billions on enforcement that adds insult to injury by deporting the very workers that hold up this economy.

this administration seems proud to out enforce the bush administration, deporting on average as angelica, 1,000 im -- immigrants a day. 1,000 immigrants who make life better not only for themselves and their families, but all of us who live in america. we've watched the paper raid tear apart the communities. in my home state on christmas eve 2009, approximately 1/4 of the town of brewster was laid off of one the largest orchards. the town is still feeling the effects and the fruit is still rotting in the field. this is not sound economic or moral policy. this is not leadership, and that

is not change we can believe in. we expect more, we expect the president to order his administration to stop the deportations and to demonstrate leadership on passing immigration reform and issue that has been shown time and time again to be a bipartisan issue that's essential for our future and for america. immigrant voters across the country had the audacity to hope when candidate obama became president obama. it's time to deliver. our patient have run out. thank you. [applause] >> our next speaker is brent wilkes, the leader of the oldest and largest hispanic organization in the united states. >> thank you. in july of 2008 candidate barack obama attended the national convention and addressed 4,000 delegates. he told us that immigrants who were working hard and

contributing to this economy deserved a break. she -- he said if he was elected president, he would pass immigration reform in the first year of his presidency. now last forward 21 months. many of the delegate that is were there believed him. they thought if candidate obama became president we would have immigration reform. one thing they never believed, is that president obama would have a record like this, where he surpassed in the bush administration in deportations. it is unconscionable to have over 87,000 people deported in the first year of obama presidency. and our community is angry. our members feel betrayed. it's not just the deportations, in addition to the deportations, the raids that president obama said he would stop have continued. over 2,000 immigrants have been

detained in raids of the first year of the administration. and just two weeks ago, homeland security did a three-day sweep in texas arresting over 284 immigrants, 119 from dallas/fort worth, 80 in san antonio. this is part of new stepped up wave of arrest that the administration plans. this is happening at the same time that the u.s. census bureau is sending out census forms across the united states. unlike previous administration both in 1990 and 2000 which backed off on immigration enforcement, this administration appears to be doubling down at a time when the community could be scared away from filling out the census. that is a big shame. because we've seen that immigration enforcement during the census time frame can contribute to huge undercounts in the latino community. with the undercounts, it comes the lack of resources in the

hispanic communities across the country. we are very concerned. as beatrice's story told us, the enforcement is far too often overlooked, especially considering the children that bare the brunt of the policy. there are 5.5 million children living in the u.s. with at least one unauthorized parent. at least 3/4 of them are u.s.-born citizenned. the department of homeland security estimates that the last 10 years, more than 100,000 of immigrant parents have been deported from the united states. can you imagine over 100,000 stories just like beatrice's happening in the country? it is a shame. we're also hurting ourself. you know, the cost of mass deportation to our economy is staggering. the center for american progress, same study that was quoted earlier, also estimates that the mass deportation would reduce u.s. gross domestic

product by $2.6 trillion, that's not including the cost of deportation. the economic impact would lead to widespread job losses throughout the united states. not only that, there's a lot of evidence that the stepped up enforcement of the bush years and into the obama years actually helped trigger the housing bust that now has lead to the economic recession, one the worst that we've seen since the great depression. we're hurting ourself by being immoral and attacking hard-working immigrants in the united states. we have a simple message. stop the deportation, pass comprehensive immigration reform. president obama, you promised our members, you promised our community, please deliver. thank you. [applause] >> >> so in our search from leadership from washington, d.c., we find ourself not finding it. we go back to our communities and seek out the leadership there. to speak about some of the

action that is are taking place around the country. i want to now introduce artemio arreola, who represents the immigration reform. >> i live in chicago for the last 20 years. 2008 was my first election that i participate. in november, the same as 10,000 million latinos were at the polls. we are excited about charismatic candidate, barack obama. where he told us in america no mother can be separated from a child. what happened later? we are thinking is it stop deportations, we hope we make it. look at what's happening. around 1,000 people, -- 1,000 faces deported every day. the latinos are frustrated.

we demand solutions, and we told the president he is not alone. we can count with us. legalization is a solution. we want it now. we want to tell also, those voters, we will keep voting in the single election. but more important, we have memory. we will remember. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

[applause] >> our next speaker is yoon. >> hi. we are hear for one reasons. thousands of thousands of immigrants who were born in different countries, who speak different languages who have a difficult culture will be marching for one reason. the reason is very simple but powerful. we care about this country. we care about america. together we want to live in america where young people, talented, smart young people have a full access to higher education. so they can be a teacher, social worker, so they can contribute

for our community. together we want to live in america. they are high walking people have a respect. and family members stay together. so they can be so productive for the work that's employment and school for this country. but sadly there is not happening in america anymore. people are suffering. just because millions and millions of people cannot drive, they can't go to school, can't even have insurance, leaveing us here every day. this is america that we are living in. is this america in the situation? in 2008 many community members of this nation vote for change. and we vote for people who can end this people's suffering.

we've been waiting, waiting, waiting. but since that, our president, our congress member, they are here. now we say we can't take it anymore. wake up. do something. we are asking now. we cannot take this anymore. on march 21, all people from all across the nation will be coming. in l.a. our community member will have a diner, we start with the food. we raise about $50,000. people bought a plate and they will be coming to d.c. young people they are going to rent a van and drive, not only l.a., but chicago, and all over the nation. they are coming to d.c. for america. we care about this country. and we need a real action, real answer, obama. real action from the congress members. time is right now.

thank you. [applause] >> thank you, dea. our next speaker is nitzasegui. >> good morning. i'm nitza and also a member of the national alliance and latin american communities. it's a network of over 80 immigrant organization located in 15 states throughout the united states. we advocate for public policies that are addressing migration and work to improve the quality of life in the communities and countries of origin. nalacc joins to denounce the

deportation and tension by immigration and custom performance of agency i.c.e. and to call the president obama to enforce a broken immigration policy that is simply immoral. and immigration system that breaks families apart and that continues to reinforce the notion that immigrants particular, particularly those of latin american region are a threat to our nation is just immoral. to continue to use the objective, illegal immigrants is the humanizing and opens the door for right-wing extreme ataxes on our communities. the branding of human being is the legal must stop. while campaigning, president obama talk about the invaluable contributions by today's immigrants and how mistaken it was to blame immigrants for our nation's ills. because we know that president

obama understands the immigration system is broken. we demand that the hard working immigrant and their families, he focuses on fixing the broken and wasteful immigration system and insulting the problem that conflict the majority of people in our society. lack of employment, loan crisis, lack of reason with affordable access to health care and the predatory behavior by banks and other financial institutions. nalacc will continue to work that truly reflects the best traditions of america and who we are as a country of immigrants as well as the principals of justice and equality for all in a founding principals of our nation. mr. obama, we are the people.

stop deportations. we want a sustainable immigration policy now. thank you. [applause] >> our next speaker to speak on how we're going to hold our leadership accountable, how we are going to march, how we're going to continue to fight is linda, board member of the new york coalition. >> good morning. my name is linda, at the umbrella of 200 organizations throughout the state of new york. i'm here today to tell president obama we need reform and we need it now. for our nation security and prosperity. we need it to keep our families together. isn't that what this country is all agent. coming from new york, i have to say that our senator, senator

chuck schumer has taken the lead on pushing immigration reform on the senate. we want to thank him for his effort, but efforts alone has not stopped the pain and suffering in our communities. we understand that later today, senator schumer, senator graham, and president president obama will be meeting. our message to them is clear and simple. do not come out of that meeting until you can commit to immediate steps to end deportation and concrete plan and timeline on immigration reform and legislation this year. :

comprehensive immigration reform, this year, not next year, now. thank you. [applause] >> our final speaker is emma lozano. executive director of the centron sin fronteras. >> i come from chicago and also from the church of alberto where was in resistance of her deportation for over a year and we saludos washington, d.c. and we will be back very shortly. we are here today to tell the president obama, nancy pelosi, harry reid, chuck schumer and our senator, dick durbin, that they need to have more courage. they need to be like our

congressman luis gutierrez. you have only 13 days left to keep your promise to the latino community. remember, if it wasn't for them you wouldn't have won that are now the new blue states that were historically red states. if you don't come do what we ask to you do, what you promise to do, we will leave you where we found you before we voted you into office. because, amigos keep promises. [speaking in native tongue] you don't act like our friends? you have not only broken your promises to move immigration reform, you have made the situation worse. deporting more people, separating more families, breaking more of our children's hearts than did the republicans in their final aggressive year. you have the power. you must use it or you will lose it. we will not live peacefully

in a nation that is at war with our community and with our families. don't mistake our faith for weakness. remember what jesus said, i did not come to bring peace but a sword. what god has put together, no man, no government, no party, should tear apart. we will put on the armor of the lord and we will come to washington. it is showdown time. we are united more than ever before and we will mowingize doctor -- mobilize than ever before. you know how we are because we've had largest mobilizations in the history of this country. we have 200 buses scheduled to leave chicago. they are preparing to join the march for america here in washington, d.c. on march 21st. the ground is already shaking. i can already hear the

footsteps to the capitol. justice delayed is justice denied. we will be in washington with all of our families, all of our churches, all of our young young men and women. all of our children. and we pray god sends you there to meet us with a bill already introduced, not a blueprint, like i said, a bill already introduced and moving both in the house and senate. washington, from now on, -- [speaking in native tongue] stop the raids, stop the deportation, stop the separation of families. [speaking in native tongue] [applause] >> so we're coming to washington from each of the coasts. we're going to be here. we're going to be in the tens of thousands.

we want our voice to be heard. we want our demands to be listened to. most importantly we want results. this concludes our presentation portion of our press conference. we are now open for questions from the press, and what i ask, is that the speakers come forward, and that you as members of the press actually address the speaker that you would like to answer the question, if that is the case. >> [inaudible]. >> i guess it is addressed to you, mainly. for what specific or realistic window of opportunity to you see for cir in congress, you know? nothing has happened so far. we'll see what they have to say after the meeting this later this afternoon, are you concerned that that window is closing on you and what would be a realistic framework to get it done this year? >> well, we are very clear that that window is closing and that's why we are going to seek to open it wide open, because we need to make sure

that our representatives actually do their job this year. and, there's an opportunity to actually put the issue of immigration reform on the calendar, to have a debate and to vote on the issue. that is our expectation. it can happen if there is political will. and political will comes when communities across the country lift up their voices and pressure their elected officials to do their job. thank you. yes? over here. >> [speaking in native tongue] what is your position to -- because people are afraid to be deported? >> answer that? >> well, let me be clear, we're adamantly opposed to boycott of the census. the census represents $10,000 person to every person that come pleents the -- completes the reform.

we would be insane to boycott the census and to put our communities at risk of receiving those financial dollars. in addition the census will help latino and immigrant communities to pick up needed seats in the u.s. congress. we're expecting pick ups from range of two seats in texas to several seats in california and many seats throughout the united states. if we're not counted, we won't have the chance to even engage in that whole redistricting process. there is no boycott. we do not support such a thing. on the other hand, we have asked the president to stop the deportation, stop the raids, stop enforcement activity during this critical time frame. his predecessors, both republican and democrat have honored that request in the past. this year the president has denied it. we think that is a huge mistake. we don't understand what his rationale is for continuing this, certainly a month or two of pause would not harm our u.s. security. but, we have not received

the answer we want from the president. we're hoping that he is still comes to realization that he should call off the i.c.e. and call off the homeland security while this critical process is taking place. thanks. >> yes? >> suzanne -- from ap. i guess i address this to those of you in, based in washington, but also those that understand the politics of everything. there is a high, a high popularity rate among hispanics for obama, or there has been last i checked. there are some, there is some legislation that has been passed or has been worked on, still being worked on, health care reform bill one of them, that could greatly benefit latinos in the u.s.. there are some realities about the latino vote in that it is really not expected to be out in large numbers in the midterms, like any other vote but probably lower. and there's some retall

alties about the party that you are criticizing and what some of the things they stand for that might benefit the hispanic community. so i'm wondering if you're asking people to, if you're saying, emma you said it, there is no reelection if, that there is no immigration reform. who do you think the people will vote for, and will they just stay home and, does it benefit you to, create, make this criticism when there are some political realities out there that the democrats are facing, some of them in, you know, borderline districts? some democrats elected in conservative districts that may not get ereelected again because they're pushing in through health care reform. >> [inaudible]. >> first of all the democratic leadership needs to understand that when you talk to latinos, you talk to any of the american people and you make a promise, that you should keep your word.

first of all. there is always a consequence, whether you're a child, and your mother told you to do something and you said yes and you didn't do it, there is always a consequence. it is the same consequence. it's okay to criticize the president and the democratic leadership when they failed to do what they said they were going to do. if you don't apply that consequence, there will be no change. historically you have to prove to them that they will have to pay a consequence in order to change. look at as we're disciplining our children. >> and i would like to add that we expect our leaders, our elected representatives to come to washington, d.c. and actually to get a job done. all of us come from different communities. we're outside of washington. we're the ones who hit the pavement and encourage our community to come out and vote and every single person who votes expects when they come to washington, they're not just bickering with each other but they're actually

understanding that they have the power to change people's lives and that's our expectation so we are in search of that leadership. if the leadership has not been elected yesterday yet, we will find that leadership and we'll elect them into office. another question, please? >> [inaudible]. "washington post.". does this, do you think this tact you're taking today represents a change in your strategy? i remember early on just after president obama took office, talking to some of you and the feeling seemed to be, you know, we understand he has a lot on his agenda. we really want some kind of immigration change this year but we understand it may not be the first thing. it might even take more than a year. there was a sense that, you know, he has a lot of other priorities and that you were sort of understanding of that. today's tone struck me as markedly different. would you characterize what you're talking about today as a change? >> the answer to that is yes.

i will pass this over to pramila jaypal to answer the question. >> absolutely. we have been patient. we all understood there were many things on the table. but the reality is immigration reform is about economic recovery, it is about jobs. it is about getting the country back on the right track. now we're saying we are waiting. we see one of the best economic recovery packages being ignored because of lack of leadership and lack of courage. i think we understand how intertwined the immigration system is with everything else that the economy, that we face in the economy and everything else that america faces. we're not ready to wait anymore. it doesn't make nick economic sense and doesn't make moral sense. we're out of time, out of patience and ready to push forward all of the power that we have collectively in our states across the country to make sure that we really are going to get 4 change that was promised to us. >> i also want to add to that, some of us, despite

our understanding of so many things that needed to get done, we are agree on something. administratively, president obama could have done certain things and stopping deportations was number one priority for our community. instead, this is happening. and if it doesn't stop, and if we don't say it now, it will continue growing. and it will be late. and yes, sometimes the democratic party thinks that us. we want to let you know i you don't. if you do the right thing you will have us. if you don't you don't have us. that is just the bottom line. we're tired. it is time for action. >> yes? >> hi, my name is --. reporter from -- times. i have a question to mr. yoon.

you told me that, deportation, from many korean people, think, illegal immigrants, undocumented immigrants are latino issue, not the korean people's issues. i met -- she told me around 240,000 korean-american jobs, illegal immigrants, that means undocumented immigrants. do you have any information about how many core reason people were deported last year, according to data. 87, 790 people were deported. among they will them, how many people korean people? >> i just want to say, not about latino issue. it is not about asian issue. it is not about korean issue. it is about people's issue. your members of community, your neighbor, your church

member and their children are crying looking for their mother. the young people can't go to school. they can't even drive. is this about race? no, it is about people's issue. we talk about economic power and boosting america's economy. legalization is one thing. people get legalized. they get driver's license. by buy car, auto insurance and, automobile, factory they hire workers. and they buy a house. we have, you're going to have boost of construction economy. it is best way to get our community back on the track. and for korean-american, one out of five korean-american are undocumented i am mp gray grants. -- immigrant. into this country 50,000 pacific islanders. people are caught in backlog. they're waiting to be reunited with their loved ones and family. on top of that 1.5 million a.

pi undocumented. it not about api, latino. it is about people issue. what are you going to do about that, america. >> others?. >> hi, i'm lauren north from "nation" magazine. i wonder if you can talk a little more what you envision for comprehensive immigration reform. specifically looking the at something like i.c.e. which consistently abused its power. has detentions that are hidden and abusing human rights on a consistent basis. i just sort of would like, we are using the term comprehensive immigration reform. what be interested what you mean by that. what are the bare minimums you are looking at? what are the bare reachs? what is the ask? >> right now first and foremost what we're requesting is political action on comprehensive immigration reform. comprehensive immigration reform means relief to a our families. that relief comes to

legalizing 12 million undocumented migrants in this country many who are children. relief means, uniting families, reducing backlogs. making sure that families can be together. it means workers rights. it means workers rights for immigrant workers and for native-born workers so we actually have good wages and good jobs that we can all, in an america we can all feel proud of. we're talking about due process. we're talking about fair treatment in every aspect of life. that's what we mean by comprehensive immigration reform. that's why we march. that's why we vote. that's why we're not going to give up until it happens. another question? >> [inaudible].

first part of my question. the second part is, -- [speaking in native tongue] >> [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> in chicago we sell ticket for $100. if we don't have the money, financing of $5,000 -- we go to the local business. they help us.

this is how the people's campaign. we are financing this campaign. we have other sources but not much to do it. we have to go from --. each, bus, 5,000 for 200 buses is one million dollars. to bring 10,000 people from chicago to d.c. >> [inaudible]. >> dancing and singing in the streets for our church. they're out there singing and dancing so they can come be a witness to this historic march on america so they can keep their family together. [speaking in native tongue]

>> we're doing a lot of grassroots actions to get to washington, d.c. and we'll get here on the 21st. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> we're fighting for comprehensive immigration reform because what was promised was comprehensive immigration reform and income prehens sieve immigration reform you have the dream act that will help

students. ag jobs that will help farmworkers and comprehensive immigration reform, seeks not to leave people behind and so that it helps people living in urban areas in the same way that it helps people in the rural areas and that's what we're fighting for so all our community has relief. >> [inaudible]. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> next question, please? >> yeah. this might be something too technical and we can make talk afterwards but how much of a sense do you have the breakdown of this increase in deportations? my understanding from reading that report it is specifically refering to deportations conducted by i.c.e. as opposed to other forms of removal or voluntary departure or border patrol removal. just that figure there, do you know what the cause of such a large numerical increase? and, in particular, as you know, the administration did

make a, you know, announcement they were ending the kind of worksite enforcement we had seen in the last year of the bush administration, to some extent seemed like that was occurring but perhaps there is other kind of enforcement going on. i'm trying to understand how much of this is expansion of secure communities, expansion of other programs and how much is that kind enforcement that particularly raised concerns in your community, like worksite raids? >> well the answer is that every year for the last 10 years we've increased the number of personnel committed to interior enforcement and border enforcement. and as a result, the increase has been pretty dramatic of the number of people being apprehended each year and being deported. this is increase of people being deported by i.c.e.. it is a dramatic increase even from the bush administration. we believe that's because the obama administration intentionally set out to try to show that he was tougher

than bush. and they have, obviously been able to accomplish a significant increase in the number of people deport. he did say he would stop some of the workplace raids but the fact is that those are continuing and in addition to that, they have been using other tactics that have put terror into the communities. s things like saying they're going after folks that are criminal aliens, but that could include people who disobeyed a deportation order, so people who are pretty much administrative folks who are nothing but hard-working immigrants, trying to contribute to this economy and trying to contribute to this country and being caught up in this increased enforcement. so we are very concerned about what the administration has done. they have argued to us they have tried to create space for comprehensive immigration reform by doing this but the fact is the space has been created i guess. this, we've had the bad stuff come through, but the, promise of comprehensive

immigration reform that was supposed to accompany this never happened and there are way behind the times. as we've been talking about the window is closing quickly. there's not a lot of indication to this point from the administration that the promise that they made, yes, there would be some more enforcement but at the same time we would be passing comprehensive immigration reform, that is not happening. because of that you've seen the anger in the community has come back and people are very frustrated, they're very upset. they did not expect this from this administration. >> yes? >> follow-up on the questions about politics in november. if latino voters get angry and disappointed with democrats, and don't turn out in some of these tight races, aren't you worried that you're just going to elect republicans even less sympathetic to what you're trying to do? >> well, what we're doing we're wanting elected

representatives that do their job, that push on issues that we care about and the thing about it is, if they're not getting reelected it is because they're not getting anything done and people are not going to go to the polls, it doesn't matter if you're latino or asian, black, white, you're not going to go to polls for people who you know are incompetent in their job. so right now what we're asking for is, do your job, do it well. represent your communities across this country. that's what we want. and, i think immigrant community, as new americans, as people who, understand the values and value of democracy, who many times came from different countries because they were fleeing tyranny, understand that democracy is only real when people hold their elected representatives accountable. i actually want to pass the word to lisa to talk about some of the work that they're doing with their electeds in new york. >> we have similar situation right now in new york city

in congressional district 13 where we we were able to help elect a democratic congressman, michael mcmann in staten island and southwest brooklyn. we've been talking to him about comprehensive immigration reform and he needs to be leader. you know he voted against health care reform. what we've been doing, we can speak to republicans in way that makes sense to them. we're well-educated immigrant communities all over country. what republicans care about the economy. when we talk about comprehensive immigration reform we talk to republicans how that benefits them and economy. they're unbelievably, or believely there are republicans who are looking at comprehensive immigration reform in a way makes sense for them. and again, just because you're not supporting one democrat doesn't mean you can't support another democrat in primary race. we want to let democrats know that we're just not going to vote democrat we're not going to vote party, we're going to vote issues that is mistake we've been done in the past we vote

party. we in new york have a, group of people from all over the state that have been lobbying in albany, lobbying our state senators. as you can see, our senator chuck schumer has been leader and advocate on immigration reform. our senator kristin gillibrand is very sympathetic and supporter of the dream act. we believe our efforts are not going unnoticed. we need more colleagues in the senate and congress to support people like gutierrez, chuck schumer and kirstin gillibrand and others so i feel like our efforts are being heard. >> just just follow-up on the numbers again. i spoke to an official at the white house this morning about those numbers and the one thing that stood out from what they said is, well, you also have to consider that some of those numbers were for the first part of the fiscal year '09 which, president bush was still in power, you know. obama only came in power in january. so that's their argument,

some of those numbers reflect the outgoing bush administration. and also, the point about you not being satisfied with what they have done so far. in terms of border enforcement and other law enforcementment measures inside the u.s., the argument is that, to satisfy those conservatives that are pushing for tougher enforcement, to get them to come to the table and come to a middle term, find a common ground, and, then, go ahead and talk about legalizing the undocumented population, so, would that be a fair enough compromise? you make a concession in terms of border enforcement and other law epforcement measures, in return for cir. >> so the question is there hasn't been any return. that's the problem. there hasn't been any return on this enforcement, just

more enforcement. did you ask them, if these are numbers that happened before january, then why do we have what happened to numbers after january when you were in charge? you didn't stop it. for many people you made it worst. we have a hotline at chirla. stories come in every day. there is chance to stop the enforcement. they can do it. there is no excuse. there is no excuse. those numbers should not have risen over the top like they did. >> i want to also caution the administration to play immigration reform with poker chips. suddenly, let's negotiate. let's give you a pathway to legalization, but let's infringe on your civil liberties and let's strengthen border patrol. as you seen recently with psa guidelines, and other issues affected many communities. we'll help one undocumented community but affect other communities like muslim community, other communities

affected by border patrol and which is part of this comprehensive immigration reform bill. comprehensive immigration reform. we won't settle for less. i caution our elected officials and play it like a poker chip. you will effect one or others. one package, we'll work last day until we get everything we want in comprehensive immigration reform. >> it is disingenuous for the administration to argue that this is not about their actions. i don't think, if you ask them that they would want to say that they didn't have their eye on the ball for first couple months they were in office. i think they would want to project that they are an administration that is in control of all the actions that have happened since they took office. and i think the reality is, you couldn't have numbers like this with just a few months of carryover from the bush administration. we've seen the i-9 audits. we've seen paper rates. we've seen workforce

enforcement rates. we've seen the bus stop raids. in our state which is a border state, northwest border, we've actually had law enforcement up in the border communities tell us that this increase in enforcement it is hurting their ability to protect communities and enforce the laws in our communities. local law enforcement. our state sheriffs association wrote a letter to president obama saying, that we need to change this. we need to put enforcement dollars in really protecting communities and insuring that our immigrant communities are actually able to work with law enforcement and actually provide them with all the information they need to affect real stoppage of real crimes going on . .

>> he's charged with making it happen. [inaudible conversations] >> secretary napolitano reports to president obama as i understand the way the administration works. so it was president obama as leader and chief, chief -- commander in chief to tell secretary napolitano that these measures are not acceptable for his administration. that's what we are calling on. yes, we don't like what secretary napolitano has done. we've told her that in meeting that he and others have held across the county and states.

we told her that directly, but it is president obama who is the commander in chief and who is the leader of this administration. he needs to tell her that and make the changes happen. >> this concludes our press conference. i thank all of you for joining us today. have a wonderful day. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> 40 years ago as lead engineer at motorola, a look at the first

mobile phone on c-span2. >> which four presidents lived past 90 years old? they were john adams, herbert hoover, ronald reagan and gerald ford. find these and others facts in "who's buried in grant's tomb"? >> it's a guide book. but also a work of biography of each of these presidents. let's face it. you can tell a lot about people at end of their lives. >> a resource guide, the story of their final moments, and insights about their lives. "who's buried in grant's tomb" now at your favorite book sellers or get a 20% discount at publicaffairsbooks.com. type in grants tomb at check out. >> later chuck schumer and senator lindsey graham had update the president on the

progress of the draft of immigration reform. later as the president club in washington, epa lisa jackson talks about climate change and her priorities. it just started. you can follow it line now on c-span. u.s. senate gavels in about 55 minutes, an hour of general speeches, and after that they will resume dewait on tax breaks and unemployment benefits. follow it live here on c-span2. i'm going to take you to an event with mark penn on upcoming midterm elections. they advice former president bill clinton during his 1996 reelection campaign and worked as the chief strategist on hillary clinton's campaign. this is hosted by the clinton's school of public service in little rock, arizona. it runs 50 minutes. >> thank you for that very kind introduction. and underscoring the voters are

not numbers. but they are people with habits, thoughts, beliefs, and i find so often that the real intelligence of the american voter is really underappreciated. in fact, i got into the business of polling pretty much after reading the book one day by a fellow called vio key. the simple fact of this book is the voters are not fools. they have real perspectives, real issues, real changes in their lifestyle. i hope as the class studies the election of 2010 to maybe provide a little insight into what's happening right now and what's happened in 2009 and before. what are the conditions that have been set up to make this perhaps one of the most hotly contested mid-term elections

probably in our life time. i think by the time we get down, you know, usually the midterms don't start until june. i think they've already started. the political season is on. and i think that's why i think by the end both parties are going to pull out the stops. i put up a little bah data -- data, because it wouldn't be a presentation without a little data. let's take a look at what the president has been through in the last year. remember, the country left the bush administration in a state of extreme dispair. they really felt that president bush did not deliver on whether the economic promises or the promises related to the war in iraq. they really wanted a change. ends if you look at the numbers, -- and if you look at the numbers, 63%, if you go into just the beginning of january if you cross over 63% of the americans thought that the

country was on the wrong track. today 65% think americas on the wrong track. so, in fact, despite some -- a serious dose of hope, optimism, and improvement that happened around march, april, and may, the general mood of the public actually remains exactly the same at one of the lowest levels that we were we record in terms of people believing things are on the wrong track. what's happen to the job approval? the blue line is his approval. it started around 62%. a great start, an excellent approval rating, however, the trend has been straight down. and there really has been

virtually no change in that trend during the entire year. you know, if we were in the white house, delivering these charts, these would be tough charts for any president, at any time. and if you look at the disapproved numbers, well the disapproved started at the republican base of 34%. they've moved up, you know, in this polling was 51 and "the new york times" polling it was pretty much split 46/54. -- 46/45. right now presidential approval is below 50%. let me give you the rule of 50%. the moment you get at 50% or below, it is to everyone's political advantage to start kicking you. while you are above radio% everybody says, you know, maybe i shouldn't get too hard. because maybe there'll be a boom rang and people will react.

when you fall below 50, it often engenders, almost collective kicking up as you will; right? and so the things get even harder to manage during this period. it's critical for president to keep his approval above 50 for that very reason, to prevent that kind of impact from setting in. i think you saw that with president bush. one day he was 50, the next day it was in the 30s. i don't think we are likely to see that with president obama. but i think the president knows he has to reverse this trend and at state of the union didn't reverse the trend. and the biggest event that the president has every year is pretty much to get up there with the state of the union, outline your agenda for the future of the country, and use that that restore confidence in the country. what happened on the state of the union was that i think the

president gave an excellent speech. but the facts of the problems, particularly the economic problems and the 10% unemployment have people in the mood now where they are saying they've got to see some results. remember it's results that create a bond between the people and the president. all presidents get elected with hope. all presidents are successful, political candidates. but out of the successful political candidates, maybe one in three actually become successful leaders and presidents. it's far harder to governor than it is to get to the presidency. now having said that, let me just say, i came on with president clinton when he was not at 47 but at 32%. and so, in fact, the ability for the president to turn this around is really quite high and quite strong. a, it's early, b, because programs take time to work, c,

when they do work, it's a bond. people always wonder how did president clinton successfully navigate the orders of '98 and impeachment? because by that time in his term, he had told people he would improve the economy and he had. he told people he'd prepare the country for the 21st century and people felt prepared. they had a bond of trust formed over 6 years that president clinton would deliver for them. that bond doesn't form early. i think what happened with president bush is after six years, they said president bush didn't deliver. and i think they soundly rejected him and couldn't wait for the change. to president obama this is only a year. the charts aren't headed in the right direction, but his problems are big. you got to reverse these by the midterms or things will continue to snowball.

if you take a look at this by party, you see that democrats, the blue line up there, they started out pretty happy. and they are still pretty happy. they were at 90% approval and they are at 80% approval. republicans were at 42% arueful and they've dropped to 19% approval. so more than half. and perhaps most important that independent line was at 62%, which remember 62% was and where the president started on average. that's dropped to 38%. so that means where democrats are, relative to the president's dramatically separated from where republicans and independents are. and that, of course, means that there's a tremendous possibility for on the one hand a united democrat party and on the other hand, considerable change in the result of the elections in

2010. if you take a look at congressional approval. congressional approval has actually improved. it used to be 80% disapproval. now it's 71%. but you can't really go into, and again you with see the similar pattern. it was at close to 80%, it was 76% disapproved in january and coming off the bush administration. then things looked promising. dramatically changed, it's so trick, you know, swing up, almost to 40% approval. and then since then, you see the similar pattern, you're down to 24% approval of congress, 71% disapproval. that means that if you are running as an incumbent in 2010, most of the voters, close to 3/469 voters are saying that they want more change in

congress. again, these are tough numbers. you know, when you see somebody like senator evan bayh saying look i'm going to resign from the senate because there's too much partisanship. he's also taking a look at numbers that said the public mood out there is about as tough for someone facing reelection in congress as i think i've ever seen it. i don't think it could get much worse than to have disapproval in the '70s. again, if you take a look at it by party and look at the blue line. for a while the democrats in the april through may, pretty satisfied. then they turned it down to 42% approved. if you look at republicans, well, republicans haven't been happy about congress since they

don't have either house and so they are not going to be happy about congress. not as surprised. but independents also followed a line when they went up to 34 and they are down at 19. but even a majority of democrats are right now not satisfied with congress. when your own party has both houses and you don't have a majority of your own party, that's also more fuel on the electoral fire that's likely to come out in the midterm elections. then if you take a look at the congressional ballot, the congressional ballot here, you know, shows 44 republican, 35 democratic, a lot of different polls have congressional ballots that show now republicans either a parody or up traditionally democrats have run about 8 points ahead, 8 or eight points

ahead in the generic congressional ballot. this is about as extreme as i've seen the congressional ballot. and let me go back to kind of a theory that i have about midterm voters. they are going to vote on the basis of the candidate. look, i really think this candidate knows the issue. he's closer to me. about 1/3 are going to vote on the basis of mood. so the result of these midterms a combination of the interaction of who the candidates are, covering about 2/3 of the voters, and the moves. because 1/3 of the voters either come out to say look we have to keep going in the direction or we have to change the direction, i'm dissatisfied. that 1/ of the voters doesn't know or even care that much who the congressional or senatorial

candidate is. what they care is they are expressing that to the vote. they are producing bigger swings which is why the swings are a little stronger, a little bigger than they predict. because again if it swings all in one direction, then that can really produce a strong reversal. i always joke the '94 congressional elections got me my job with the president. after that, the president really changed, you know, the team, the staff, the direction, and really moved back to the center in a very significant way. but than that led to the reelection of '96 and the kind of approval of his presidency throughout. but these again are tough numbers. now, there's one other factor that i think that it's worth

pointing out which is the rise of independent voters. you know, we've had several independent presidential candidacies, 180 we had john anderson, ross perot went in and out of the presidential race. typically if you go back, this has not been a country with a significant number of independents historically. if you go back to the 1940s, in terms of party identification, you can see that between 15 and 20% of the country identified themselves as independents. and around 40% at the time identified themselves at democrats and around 35% identified themselves as republicans. and you can see, you know, the peak at around the time of president kennedy's election in the early 1960s, the democrats went straight up to actually 50%

of the country identifying themselves as democrats and the republicans went straight down. as you can see, the serge back comes around 1980, right with president reagan bringing back the republican party. but if you look at that yellow line in there, that's the independent line. and the independent line has shown a steady rise in the country. so that at this moment, 36% in this poll, i've seen it in some polls as high as 40 or 43%. the biggest party in america at this moment is no party. this is if you go back to the 70-year history year, this is a first in the united states electoral politics. so when we talk about independent voters, we are no longer talking about a small swing group or microtrend.

we're talking about the biggest imaginable block of voters and the number of voters then that can swing back and forth from the two-parties is greater than ever. and the number of voters who are saying,ing you know, i had faith in the republican party, they let me down. i had faith in the democratic party, they let me down. i'm now kind of sitting back here waiting to see whether or not i'm going to go back to the democrats if i see progress on the economy or maybe swing in another direction. but these are all also political currents that would suggest that the -- that would suggest that there is considerable movement, considerable possibility or growth in a political environment like this. now this could change back. if you go through the historical patterns, you can see how the democrats and republicans have both had times when we come back. but as you get a new, younger

group of voters to communications and networks connecting on issues, and if you take the number one sentiment in the country which is i want to see progress, not partisanship, you are seeing that both parties are facing now a crisis in confidence over themselves, frankly, and i've been -- i should say that a lot of polls and a lot of people always like to say there's a crisis of confidence in government and our institutions. and i'm usually the guy that says that's not really the case. there's no a crisis of confidence. people are voting, people are listening, people are participating more than ever before. but they really are saying in a very clear way, enough partnership, i want to really see, you know, common sense ideas adopted across party lines. and as you can see from this

number, there's a tremendous change. now the media is off focused very much on tea party republicans and sarah palin. when you look at this chart, if there is change, one way or the other, is not going to be driven by sarah palin or the tea party movement. it's going to be driven by the voters that i told you about the beginning of the talk, rational thinking, better educated voters who care about the issues. i want solution to the fiscal problem. i want a solution to the economy. and these finds of voters now, more informed, more tuned in, i think people are following politics as never before. they are not rejecting the system. they are saying i'm going to participate in it, and i'm going to participate in it on my terms. and i think it's very important for the political leaders to be

attuned to that. and look, the other thing about the voters, this growing group of independent voters is that it's frustrating for them to find the voice, particularly when they feel the media is being dominated by the left or right continually with attention given to whether it's palin or others, instead of how they really feel about issues like health care, education, and the economy. so, you know, at the end of the day, you know, what's the president got to do about this? the president has to do a number of things right. he's clearly gotten the message of massachusetts. the first thing in governing from the center and recognizing the growth of independent voters, the actions have to be more than words. people have to feel the administration itself is governing squarely in the

center, is looking for the kind of common sense solutions to the big problems out there. and that means if oarlock at the charts, that means that they have to see a change in direction from the white house. an explicit, clear, change in direction. or they've got to see some results. because their patient for results is wearing thin. i think if you recall president clinton had a very clear economic strategy. elements of that economic strategy were popular, some were not so popular. he believed in expanding trade, he believed in expanded investment, infrastructure, education, math, science, he believed in closing the federal deficit. and those three elements were a strategy whether they were for or against, whether they like the pain or not of higher

taxes. the infrastructure and expenditures and education and moving the country forward. they hung together as a clear strategy. what are the elements beyond stimulus that are a strategy for the long term success of this country and a competitive global environment? the president is going to need a definite strategy, without a clear deficit strategy, people are going to say it's out of control. the commission is a first step towards that strategy, but at the end of the day, it's not a substitute for that strategy. and then, you know, working on the everyday problems, sometimes it's popular to ridicule a lot of things the president clinton did in '96. he did some small things like balancing the budget, reforming

welfare, creating 24 million jobs, you know? take a look at the things that were done in the '96 to 2000 period were in many senses the kind of towering achievement that started with these individual strategies but layered up not just to these big accomplishments of welfare reform of the balanced budget and putting 24 million people to work. but also making people feel good about the roll that government played in people's lives. as he said then, the era of big government was over. that didn't mean the government didn't help eliminate some of the problems of smoking, it meant it didn't help protect kids, didn't help protect women from abuse, it took on day after day a series of growing modern problems. whether it's soccer moms who

felt them or an a aging work force that needed them. and he really connected with people's everyday life. if i were going to say what's really needed is the kind of clintonism following '96. the clintonism can in many ways being easily underrated. it was as flashy. but it sure was protective. having the clear economic strategy with its three legs really going for the balance the budget, really then creating welfare reform, moving the country to the center that the people felt the president was listening to them. that was so critical in

president clinton's time. all of these elements are very similar to what president obama has to do in order both to reverse the kind of numbers that you see here, and to be an incredibly successful president. we're all hoping he's going to do that. we're all hoping that a good dose of clintonism will, in fact, really help put this country in the direction that i think the country is clearly looking for. thank you. [applause] >> folks can ask questions. please raise your hands and wait for the must have been to get to you. lots of questions about the 2010 elections i'm sure.

>> i'm lindsey, and i'm a student here. i was wondering, i know it's a little early nit year, but if you think the republicans will take back over the house and senate and get majority of governors as well. >> well, you know, it's early to make those predictions. i think the point of if these numbers continue as they are, you can see the kind of swing where the house would shift, where the senate would become considerably closer. these are pretty frightening trends from that respect. but the most important part of this talk is that these trends are not set in stone. you know? what happens with unemployment, what the president does, whether

he shifts the directions, there's a lot of time here. polls are a snapshot in time. your predictions are actually a snapshot in time. they are based on what conditions are today. conditions are today aren't good, you know, for the 2010 elections, they could very well produce the kind of swing that would move the house. i think that it's harder, remember in 1994, there were 22 regular nations. -- resignations. i think there's 19 here. i think it's harder for the conditions that happened in '94 to recur. the republicans don't seem to have their act together, and they don't have a leadership that as a strategy. if we say look, we saw what happened in '94, what's the probability of that

rehappening? there's certainly a probability. structurally, it's a little less likely. numbers wise it evens it out because the discontent could be so high. i think if unemployment got down to 8% and people saw continued direction, i think you'd see a lot of the reduction on the pressure on this. questions? my name is erin, i'm a student as well. the extratryst voting and moving towards the center when you are looking towards the politicians, do you think it has increased the number of independents? >> i don't think there's been enough, i don't think there's been enough focus on the center, at least in the way i interpret how the media tends to cover the political stories. it seems to me that whatever has held the center since, you know, 1992 has really held governing

mantle of the country. if you take one model which is the country is all about red versus blue. that really was the model in the 1940s when everyone was red or blue or picked sides. since 1991, people saw clinton as being, more in the center. i think in '92, '96 it was very much the same thing. where he held the center against bob dole who we've seen as more conservative. i think in 2000, bush managed to win the presidency through compassion. his move to the center and he painted al gore as a big government liberal. he pushed al gore a little bit to the left. frankly, al gore had an equally good claim to the center. so the election came down to the wire. i think bush reheld that in 2004

against kerry whom he pushed to the left. he lost it after 2006. bush seemed to be dominated completely by cheney and the right wing and the center said, you know, this is not what we bargained for at all. and they shifted. i think obama held the center going into the election, and i think as you can see what the growth of independents, it's the center that's really at stake. and the media makes it look like it's the extremes. i notice they tried to depict all voters are angry. it's all about who can tap into the anger better. my point is a lot of the voters are distressed and rational. they may have anger. but they their actions are really irrational. they are upset with the conditions of the country. they are upset with the definite

and unemployment. and so they are going to vote on the bases of that, who they think offers them not a more extreme picture but who offers them a more rational way out. i think that's how president obama got elected in the debates when he appeared to have a rational, thoughtful way out. john mccain didn't seem to have a include or plan. that was not anger, that was quite thoughtful. >> there may be a temptation to think that's all tea party members. could you give us a little background on what's inside the independent constituency. i think that's a good question. independents aren't monolithic either. if you look at what's in the independent bin is mostly former democrats and former republicans. all right?

and so they are actually kind of analyzing them. they are ross perot, more antigovernment, somewhat more alienated, although it's an old analogy, more john anderson. well educated, thoughtful. but view not -- they view their vote as being not about the parties but about what they think is right. you also have a lot of independents in there who now are socially more tolerant but economically more conservative. you believe in smaller government and some of the public. you don't want to put your lot in with the sarah palin and extreme right.

you are confused about where to go. that's a very big part of the growing independent group. >> i got a question right here at the back. >> hello, you haven't mentioned health care, how big of a roll will that play and is there anything that obama or congress can do between now and then to move that along? >> well, the issue about health care is -- and i think if you go back after hillary's original attempt at health care, we're going to move step by step on health care. we know that everybody agrees with the goals. let's have better health care with wider coverage and lower cost. so the issue is how do you get there and how do you pay for it? it opens up a pandora's box of

issues. the most importantly they feel they don't want to see changes that might impinge their ability to get the health care. the obama administration looked at some of the things hillary did. hillary waited until later. she did the plan and gave it to congress. they took an opposite approach, saying, well, maybe there will be more successful. we'll do it earlier. and we won't write the plan here at the white house, we'll let the plan bubble up from congress. what they learned was that it didn't matter how i approach the problem, even if you did what previous people didn't do, it still gets you to the very same place. which is that people are reluctant to see big change to

their health care system occurring all at once. let's go electronic medical records, let's get rid of discrimination, health care discrimination, let's not just add all kids but the next step up. i think you see the voters saying that they are very weary of enormous plans that they don't understand on health care and they also weary of any health care plans before have full confidence that the rest of the country is moving in the right direction. i don't think health care, if it is where it is now or the president comes back with some limited pieces, i think the president will successfully walk this back from becoming a big issue in the election. because clearly any look at the numbers on health care would have shown the similar pattern of people started out positive

the more negative they became. let's pick things we can agree on discrimination or health care medical records and keep the process moving. then come back either after the midterms or after the second election and keep moving the process forward and to have the goal of universal health care be an end point rather than a starting point. i think that's clearly what the message that the voters have sent. and both of these attempts. >> back to the independents and how they make up their mind and when, how much do we know ant when the independent matches up with a and did, do they float as

they scan their own interest and go from candidate to candidate or do they more likely sort of stick? well, there's no real single model here about whether independents are going to make up their vote. independents are more of a floating vote. because as you can see, once people identify, there's 70 to 90% probability, it's not straight down the line give or take ones where they don't like the candidate choices. what's happening is if the wigger the group, the greater the probability or possibility of volatility in the elections. because those voters can or more likely to decide later, they are more likely to change their mind once or twice, more likely to see swings and more likely to

vote on how they think the conditions are of the country at the time that they vote. and that means if you think the electrohas been volatile, i haven't seen nothing yet. you have one that's monitored by infinance, by definition, they are going to swing much more. and it means as i said, we think of the swing voters as a small group. now i think philosophically, a lot of people in the parties push this notion that the swing voter was a small group in a country that is essentially chosen sides. and the numbers over the last 70 years show that exactly the opposite process has been happening. that's not what the country is like. in fact, there are these three very distinct groups. if you are a democrat or republican these days, you're only doing to win almost any election, almost anywhere, only

if you have a majority of the independents support. any more questions? >> i hear there are folks that want to move the process forward and see progress and the gridlock in the senate, do you see any political advantage to kind of take a harder line and put their bills on the floor and force the republicans hand and force them to do the filibuster they keep saying they are being to do, at least creating the image that we're trying to move the process forward or maybe believe they are moving the process forward. could that help the democrats? >> i think that's one thing you do see in the polls. it's that the president is really seeing as the one reaching out now to both parties. i think for a while, the president was seen as perhaps just playing with the democrats.

but right now, i think since the state of the union and the last couple of weeks doing to the republican retreat and pushing forward the commission, i think about 2-1 in the "times" poll. they said the president is in fact reaching out to try to find more bipartisan solutions. i think that's probably the single biggest movement that i saw in the latest polled in favor. and the democrat in congress, as you say, can adopt one or two strategies. they can join the bipartisan notion and kind of along with the president seem to be reaching out to try to make compromises to end the log jam. while alternatively, they can put through a number of votes that are president for the republicans leading up to the congressional elections which was a strategy that the

republicans always did to the mt.s; right. as some tax increase. so the democrats are, you know, and probability the democrats need to do a little of each. you need to a, i think, show that you are for progress and you need to show that republicans, in fact, don't have any ideas or clinging to some old ideas while leaderless and left to their own twices aren't voting for the kind of solutions. i think they are going to need to deploy both of those kinds of strategies coming up here. >> hello, i'm patrick. i'm a student of the clinton school. i like the president that's transparent and lays out a simple plan that we can identify with. lately i've been sort of

frustrated with watching the events that's happening in congress because the seems to be so much bickering. until i saw a video on youtube of president obama addressing the gop. it was him standing in front of all of these republicans saying, what do you want to know? just talk to me. i guess i was wondering, what is your opinion about his new initiative to try to televise or at least make footage available of events like that that are going on in congress? >> yeah, i thought that was an excellent event that president obama did. i think it was genuine. it was real. i think it was interesting because there was a wild spread sense in america we don't get to see real discussions of political figures on issues. in britain, it really provides an opportunity to really question everybody. you are just used to kind of the

open televised, you know, rough and tumble between the political figures and that in many ways, we run a culture of press conferences and isolated messages. the other interactive events we have are the presidential debates. so i think it's not just a question of transpansy, but i do think the downside would be people would see bickering and people would see working. that kind of working across the aisle is not staged. but, you know, it's part of genuine, ongoing interchange. i think one of the things that president obama ran and won on was the idea of being the, you know, the most transparent president. and in the modern world where everyone is online instantly, i think delivering on that promise is part of what he needs to do. you know, every president, in

order to think to be maxly successful has to be the person that people voted for and elected. and i think one of the reasons they voted for an election was he is going to bring a modern sense of transparency, of not listening to the special interest into the president si and i think he can't do enough, of, you know, such events. >> there's a question right here. how coronet in reality is a turn around of the -- important in reality is turn around to the financial crisis where the middle class really feels like they are seeing a turn around before the numbers change for obama? >> well, i think that there's a very, very strong connection between the unemployment numbers and the numbers that you are seeing politically.

it's very hard for you to be -- get widespread approval with 10% unemployment. and so that's why i said throughout this talk that there's doing a lot of the right things as president. there's being more transparent. there's creating kind of the sense that you are bringing in both parties and moving forward. there's no substitute for some resolve. when people see the unemployment numbers down, everyone who said, boy, this program isn't working will now suddenly say, boy, this program is working. and i'm glad, you know, that's why we have four-year terms; right? precisely because of the problem if we let people judge everything on what happens every day. so the importance, i always said that the unemployment at 10% was like a trip wire. as it went up, once it got to 10%, that kind of number would

just become em blazened in people's minds. i think it has. it was unfortunate it couldn't be avoided. getting it back down to 8% or below will also be a similar reverse trip wire and show, hey, progress is working. we hair various predictions about what's going to happen. but i do think the reality of that is it can really change a lot of the political numbers that we see. >> mark, you said a few minutes ago about 21-71 at levels that really are very high. and you sighted that perhaps as a factor in senator evan bayh's decision not to run. if you were looking at that today and advicing or tossing out advice for another incumbent senator like blanche lincoln from arkansas, what would you

say? what would you say or do? >> well, i think it's a tough -- it's a tough situation. it's a tough situation here in arkansas. i think the general since for most people is to really, i think, come out and pick some issues, some strong issues that you think are important to people, run a public campaign and try to say let's not get caught up in the politics of partisanship. i think senator bayh did strike a cord in a lot of people where he said there's too much partisanship here. we have to move to get things done. that means the people who want to stay in the senate and get back what's happening, they have to echo that's where they personally are. they have to pick a couple of big common sense issues and really drive those homes. and third, i do think they have

to say the republican don't have any answers other than no. i do think what the public was saying don't take a turn, you know, actually if you look at those congressional numbers under the republican, they are a few points worse. all right? and so the problem is that why turn to something you know doesn't work when you haven't given the democrats a fair chance at turning the country around. and i think you'd have to do those three things asthma jr. elements of a strategy, you know, in what it's going to be a difficult election. we have time for one more question. let's see, right here. >> how much of a quandary are people in your industry going to be on the campaign contribution limit have been thrown out the window? do you think the daily basis, public opinion is going to be swayed by who has the best commercial? >> swayed by?

>> whoever has the best commercial or message at the moment. >> i used to joke that we spend a lot more on advertising a hamburger than on our political system. that's changed. there's a lot more in politics today. the effort to restrict money in politics has backfired. so far, i don't think the supreme court ruling will make a lot of difference. because already interest groups had significant numbers of advertisements on the air through independent groups. it'd make a difference in the last 30 to 60 days or more explicit messages, but already we have seen when they started this, we have probably not seen a midterm election the way this could shape up. it was interesting. the american public, they got obviously involved in the 2008

election, almost like never before. then i think, a lot of people put away politics for a while. that's over. now i think it's coming back. and so i think you're going to see this highly contested. i think, remember, what fueled also 2008 was small donors. there was never a tradition in this country of small, political donations. i used to do dnc polls of political donors. that average age was 80. okay? they were just a few people, give me this list. i said was this the hole -- whole list? for the first time you had a full microfriend, -- microtrend, 1% of people, the things have that changed to go on the air was the involvement of the citizens. if you take the 3 million

citizens and the interest, you are right. you know, the advertisement industry would be in for continued success on alternate years to considerable extent. but i guess my point is i don't know that that's going to result in more volatility of the electorate. they have a sense of what they want. working in middle class voters are better educated, they research things on the internet that they tend to be more serious voters than people give them credit for. i think we have high levels of political advertising forever. but i do think we're going to have historically high levels of political involvement for this country for some time to come as well. >> ladies and gentlemen, mark penn. [applause]

>> the senate convenes in just a few minutes. but first, homeland security secretary janet napolitano announcing president obama nominee to head the transportation security administration. the president's original nominee withdrew from consideration following objections by senate republicans. >> hey, buys, this is a reminder, our secretary is going to make remarks and not be able for questions today. >> you want to -- here we are. good morning. i'm here today to announce that president obama will nominate major general bob harding to be the next transportation administration of the security administration. this is a critical leadership

position of the security of our nation. by nominating general harding for the job, this administration is calling on an individual with more than 35 years of experience. as an army commander, a senior military intelligence officer, a high level manager of intelligence operations and a successful businessman and ceo in the security field. the general will need all of these talents as he takes the helm of the vital agency. tsa's mandate is a broad one. they are not only responsibility for transportation, but rail, bus, and trucking systems as well. the general will be a tremendous asset in our screens measures at our domestic airports. by deploying additional airport law enforcement officials, air marshals, and k-9 teams and fixing the gaps in our international civil aviation system as well.

on friday we announced that the first 11 airports that will receive advance the imaging technology that purchased with the reinvestment act dollars. they are enhancing our capability to detect and disarm threats to our nation. we expect to have 450 units by 2010 and our fy2011 budgets called for 500 more. we have accelerated the deployment and strengthen our other layers of aviation security, partially in response to the attempted terrorist attack on september 25 which served as the reminder of the resolving tactics that they will pursue, to thwart the security measures since 9/11 and kill

innocent women and children. it requires an international response as well. right now, dhs is working on an international effort to build consensus on strengthening international aviation security. since january, i've met with my european count parts and my north, south, and central american and caribbean colleagues in mexico last week to produce standards. these meeting have produced encouraging results. including joint declarations to strengthen the aviation system between the united states and the european union and between the united states and argentina, chile, mexico, and panama. on friday, my japanese counterpart, transport minister and i announced that we will join with our counterparts from the asia/pacific region to

continue building the international consensus. make no mistake, we are encouraged in an effort to strengthen the system against terrorist who are constantly seeking ways to exploit gaps and thwart security measures. general harding is precisely the kind of leader that we need. his national security expertise, his work in the international community and years of service in the united states army will be an valuable added edition to the departments effort to bolster security and ensure the safety of the nation's transportation systems. i may add as a retired u.s. army major general, bob also adds another distinguished veteran to the senior ranks of the department of homeland security. let me close by saying this, the tsa administrator is among the most important unfilled post in the obama administration. the president and i both believe that general harding has the

experience and perspective to make a real difference and caring out the mission of this agency. if there were ever a nominee who wanted expedited and detailed consideration, this is it. we hope the commerce and homeland security committee will be able to work to complete their hearing process and so that his nomination may move to the floor for confirmation. i applaud the president and this is a superb choice, i look forward to senate conversation and i look toward to having bob on board at the tsa very, very soon. thank you, general. all right. thank you, all. >> can you say anything on the aviation and transportation? [inaudible conversations]

>> the u.s. senate gaveling in at this hour. gaveling in to start the workweek. senators beginning today with general speeches and then they return on a debate to expand expiring tax provisions and other federal programs. that bill also includes unemployment, flood insurance, cobra health insurance and highway. no vote today, but tomorrow a vote on the tax extension bill and debate on the bill. house not in session today. tomorrow they will meet. later this week, aid on haiti and chile on the earthquakes. they will also talk about u.s. troops being withdrawn by the end of this year.

our live senate coverage happens right now here on c-span2. join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, march 8, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mark r. warner, a senator from the commonwealth of virginia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: under previous order, the leadership time is reserved and there will be a period of morning business until 3:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, for more than a year now, democrats in washington have been focused, some would say fixated, on making dramatic changes to the american health

care system as we know it. now it's an open debate as to whether spending so much time and energy on this issue was in the best interests of the public at a time of record unemployment and a need to address jobs and the economy. but what's not open to debate is that the plan they came up with was fundamentally flawed, that it focused too much on expanding the size and cost of government and not enough on the core problem with our health care system, which is cost. this is why americans have been telling democrats in washington to scrap their plan and start over, and this is why so many americans are so frustrated with government right now. the administration says we need to pass its health spending bill to show americans that government still works. americans are saying just the co what the public is saying: to

ov. unfortunately, interesd me the same old process americans rejected last er a bil. ee twisting next few weeks, and dl making we run-up to christmast,'t the army after the final bill hits on bea somehow the administration seems to think all this arm twisting and deal making will prove to the american people t works. i should think that americans will draw the

conclusion. americans don't like this bill any more today than they did three months. they dong any more now than they did thenhe this, s understandable that a lot of democrats are on the fence about whether to vote for this, about whether to vote for this process, as well. but the reasons they're giving for being on the fence really don't square with reality and they're not going to fly with the public. some say they like the current bill because they say it reduces costs. it doesn't. the administration's own experts say the bill increases health spending by $222 billion more than if we took no action at all. in other words, this bill would bend the cost curve up, not down. others say they like the current bill because they say it reduces the deficit, but even if you grant that highly speculative

premise, the one bill that the senate will be voting on tomorrow would wipe away every dime of those projected savings with one stroke of the president's pen. if you believe that the health bill will save $100 billion, then you have to also acknowledge that the bill the senate will pass this increases it by $100 billion. so far from moving in a more fiscally responsible direction, the health spending bill that the white house now wants congress to pass before easter would move us in a less fiscally responsible direction, and this undercuts the entire point of reform. the administration recognizes the weakness of its argument. that's why it's trying to create a sense of inevitability about this bill. once again, it's impose not an artificial deadline to put pressure on members. it's talking about how we're in

the middle of the final chapter of this debate. the administration wants -- the administration wants members to believe they're characters in a screenplay and that the ending of the play is already written. this is an illusion. house members aren't buying these arguments any more. in fact, many of them are already walking off the set and my guess is that a lot more are about to. they know that we may be nearing the final act for this bill and the legislative process but that it's just beginning for those who support it. americans do not want this bill. they're telling us to start over. and the only people who don't seem to be getting the message are democratic leaders in washington. but they can be sure of this -- absolutely sure of this -- if they cut their deal, if they somehow convince enough members

to come onboard, then they'll get the message. the public will let them know how they feel about this bill. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. kaufman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: i ask that the call. quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: i ask consent to speak in morning business for 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: following moshings the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 4213. last week the majority leader filed cloture on the tax extenders legislation. there is a 3:00 agreement today for filing first-degree amendments. there will be no roll call votes today. senators should expect a series of votes to begin tomorrow morning. mr. president, i rise to speak today about the importance of energy education. as my colleagues know, this is an issue near and dear to my heart. i believe we are at a crucial moment for stem, science technology, engineer and maths matterics. it often reminds me of sailing. whether you've done sailing or not, you know that you can construct the perfect sailboat, outfit it with the best sails, man it with the greatest crew,

if the wind is not going, you're going nowhere. well, the wind is blowing for stem education, and we have an opportunity, those who care about stem education, that we haven't had for a long time. today america's engines have a central -- today's america's engineers have a central role to play in developing technology that will help our economy recover and promote real job growth. as the global economy turns increasingly competitive, many nations are investing heavily in training their future scientists and engineers. we don't know where the next innovation of engineer will come from. we want to do what we can to make sure it comes from the united states. this means we must have an innovation policy, one that helps generate greater interest in stem and actually leads to the production of greater numbers of engineers. a few weeks after i took office,

i began meeting with groups of engineering deans to discuss these issues. i've learned many important things in these conversations. for example, while all the surveys today say qulung people want to -- young people want to make a difference, that's really great. that's the good news. thed about news is they don't see engining ago a way to make a dinks. engineers have always been the world's problem solvers. when i graduated from high school, the thing that everyone wanted to be was an engineer. and that was followed up by sputnik. so i graduated where everybody made the relationship and understood if you want to make a difference, engineering, science, math, that's the way to do it. we have to make sure that students are aware of that, so they'll aspire to take on the challenges we face today. i also learned about a challenge coming on many of the nation's college campuses. in talking to engineering deans, it is clear the present economic downturn has exacerbated the problem that's been with us

quite a while. that is the additional cost of educating an engineering student which requires an investment in labs and other costly facilities. simile put, most universities make -- simply put, most universities make more money on liberal arts the students than stem students. we must start educating educators that the long-term benefits to the university and the united states of spending the additional money required to graduate more engineering students. many administrators do get it. one is pat hartford, president of the united states of delaware, an engineering graduate from the university of pennsylvania. working with his engineering dean, mike chavez, they've increased last year's engineering class by 235%. however, because of the lack of labs, they now have to hold lab classes for engineering students on saturday. to figure out how to address these issues and grow the engineers and scientists we need, i again met with a small group of deans in the fall working with the american

society of engineering education to give them a homework project. i turned the tables on them. it felt good. this time the professors had to do the homework fl we sent out an informal survey to try to figure out how to increase the number of graduates from our engineering styles. these comments provide a very clear p.r.c. picture of what needs to be done. several common themes emerged from the survey. to begin with. these deans sthaid we need a better way to communicate to parents, students and school counselors about what at that means to be an engineer. there was a great idea from maryland about creating a web site on the rock staffers engineering like bill gates, alan malalley and others. they also agreed that green jobs are an excellent way to show young people how engineers make a difference. "service to the community and the belief in great causes resonates with the millennial

generation. this makes green energy and clean tech the perfect vehicle to entice students into careers in engineering." they told me that students better prepared in k-12 science and math education was required. for the past five years, the college of engine at marquette university has been engaged in a range of "stem" activitie activo increase the number of k-12 students who are interested in studying engineering. marquette hosts nearly 50 seminars every yeemplet students learn hands-on activities in robotics, biomedical engineering, energy, bridges and more. the university also supports projects leading the way, courses that provide an edge gailging, hands-on curriculum in stem education. they inspire young people to be science and technology leader

through a team robotics competition. i met with the team from delaware. young people in sixth and seventh grade deciding they want to be engineers because they begin to realize how much fun it can be and how rewarding it can be. they also created a scholarship fund to aid students pursuing engineering who could no ad foro attend there. marquette provides a conference to begin stem activities. marquette's dean told us, "we have been at this for five years. over the time, our incoming freshmen classes have increased by 46%." 46%. this is great news. the surveys also told us that "even if our campuses told us that we had the space to teach additional students, these deans would need additional research dollars." i'm so encouraged by what

they're doing in utah. in 2002, utah's governor challenged the highest education committee through the engineering initiative to double and then triple the number of students that they graduate. each year since the legislators allocated funds to support the engineering education. these funds have been matched first by the university and then by corporate dough neighses and then by the federal government. utah's governor also prioritized qut by the college of engining. while the utah science, technology, and research initiative provides salaries and start-up packages. faculty members grew by 46% since the initiative began. tenure-track faculty members grew by 46% since utah's engineering initiative began frvment 2002 to 2009,

engineering research, research expenditures went from 25 million to $56.9 million. the number of engineering degrees granded by the university of utah rose 76% in the last decade. and roughly 80% of those undergraduates accept engineerinengineering jobs righn utah. what is more, the college of engineering spun out 35 companies in the past three years. i know how much our presiding officer cares about that. getting in the private sector. the college of engineering at utah increased engineering degrees by 76%, and the college of engineering spun up 35 companies in just the past five years. the university of unfortunate as a whole ranked second only to m.i.t. in the number of start-ups. this is all done by a program that was put together in utah. these results are remarkable. i truly am impressed with the work some of our nation's engineering colleges are doing and i am inspired by their

ideas. i think there are four things that the federal government can do bolster these efforts. first, we can help inspire more young people to pursue engineering in the growing green economy. that's why i am so pleased that president obama launched the educate to innovate program. this campaign is a nationwide effort of private companies, universities, foundations, nonprofits, science and engineering societies working with the federal government to improve student performance engagement in stem subjects. as part of the educate to innovate effort, president obama announced an annual science fair at the white house so that -- quote -- "scientists and engineers standed side by side with athletes and entertainers as role models." i think that's a very powerful message to america's youth. second, we can build a new generation of engineerser engineers through policies that

promote stem education. the fiscal year 2011 department of education budget includes $833 million for stem education. this includes funding to improve teaching and learning of stem subjects, to support stem projects and the investing in education education program, to create a new stem initiative to attract underwatt waiteds to stem field and to close the gender gaps in stem disciplines. in addition, i'm pleased to join senator gillibrand and a number of my other colleagues in introducing bipartisan legislation lat week that will further these initiatives. this bill is the engineering, education for innovation act or the e-squared for innovation act. this authorizati this legislation awards money for states to initiate engineering education. it funds the research and evaluation of these efforts base o# largely on the recommendations of the national

academy of engineering and national research councils engineering k-12 education report, 77 organizations have voiced their support for the e-squared innovation act. the third important step the federal government can take is to promote policies to encourage women and underrepresented minorities to enter engineering. while women earn 58% of all bachelors address, they constitute only 18.5% of bachelors address awarded in engineering. we can't let that go on. that is ridiculous. african-americans hold only 4.6% of bachelors address awarded in engineering and hispanics only 7.2%. how can we move in the 21st century? how can we be the great country we're going to be if we're so underrepresented in women and minorities? we can and we must do better. last year a bipartisan group of 13 senators joined me in running the appropriations committee on agriculture to urge greater funding to increase the

representation of women and underrepresented minorities in stem. that's the second thing i've talked about for stem education where there's clear bipartisan support. stem education is not a partisan issue. it gets bipartisan support. it's important for all of us, and we all agree. i'm grateful that in response to the agriculture appropriations bill we enacted last october included $400,000 to fund research and extension grants at land grant universities for women and minorities in stem fields. this was a small but important step that we can continue to build on from year to year. last, we must continue to support research and development, a challenge that would require significant federal as well as private investment. in our current economy, it's hard, especially in this body, to imagine investing more in anything. but as congress has recognized overt years, and has reinforced in the survey, funding is the lifeblood of innovation.

to yield more innovation, we need more r&d funding so we can accept more engineering students and create more jobs. utah is a great example in the important example in srefgs in research and development. it is estimated for every $1 million in research generated by utah's research universities, $1.5 million is created in increased business activity. we're all talking about how to generate business activity? for every $1 million of research generated in research utah's university we get back $1.5 million in increased business activity. a forthcoming report from science coalition features 100 companies that can be directly traced to research conducted at a university and sponsored by a federal age seufplt examples -- agency. examples include google. i become more encouraged every day we have more support for engineering. engineers and scientists will

foster the research and innovation that leads america on a path to economic recovery and prosperity. likewise, these discoveries and innovations would create millions of new jobs and they will help us invest in our future security and prosperity. this is the target, this is the way, this is the way to get to long-term economic health. i yield the floor. thpresiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. specter: mr. president, i ask consent that senator johanns be recognized next and that i be recognized following his remarks

for up to 20 minutes. following my remarks, senator kyl be recognized. and for senator kyl, senator -- be recognized. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. johanns: mr. president, i rise today to speak for about ten minutes to talk about the health care debate that continues to be in front of us. for much of our country, the health care debate has been a long and confusing trail. as details have emerged over the last weeks and months, constituents ask me what's going to happen to my health care? will i be able to continue to see the doctor that i have always seen? they've heard both sides argue the merits and the detriments of various pieces of legislation. citizens are understandably

skeptical and perplexed by the debate that has transpired. one of the things i would suggest, mr. president, that is very clear, one situation that is clear as a matter of policy and conscience is this, and that is that americans are against the federal funding of abortion, whether they support or oppose the bill. unfortunately, the senate-passed health care bill allows taxpayer funds to fund abortion. the current senate language does this: it says people who receive a new government subsidy could enroll in an insurance plan that covers abortion. stphog would stop them from -- nothing would stop them from doing that. some say, well, yes, but states could opt out. what i point out is that those states that opt out, in those

states the taxpayers would still see their tax dollars funding elective abortions in other states. additionally, the office of personnel management can provide access to two multistate plans in each state, and only one of them would exclude abortions. o.p.m.'s current health care program, the federal employee health benefits program, now prohibits any plans -- any plans -- that cover elective abortion. so for the first time a federally funded and managed health care plan will cover elective abortions. those who have looked at this language have said very clearly that it's woefully inadequate. i say that. it does not apply a decades-old

policy and agreement really that was reached many, many years ago that was embodied in the hyde amendment. the hyde language bars federal funding for abortion except in the cases of rape and insist or where the life of the mother is at stake. the public has clearly rejected advancing the abortion agenda under the guise of health care reform. yet, as we have seen, the language of the senate bill proceeded, seems very, very clear that my colleagues are refusing to listen to that. they seem bent on forcing this very unpopular bill upon us via a rather arcane process called reconciliation. the important point to be made today is this: reconciliation will not allow us to fix the egregious abortion language.

mr. president, this is not the first time that i have come to the floor to speak about this issue. last november, i came here to urge pro-life senators to vote "no" on cloture if they wanted any chance to address the federal funding of abortion in the senate bill. i said then that if the language wasn't fixed before the debate began, there would be no way to fix it. we would not have any leverage to fix it. mr. president, i wish i were here on the floor today to say this, to say that i was wrong about that. unfortunately, though, i was not wrong. unfortunately, when an amendment was offered to match the stupak language in the house bill with the senate bill, only 45

senators supported it. the sad reality is this, this senate as a matter of the majority is not a pro-life majority. there are not 60 senators who are willing to vote for that. back in november, some of my colleagues disagreed with my assessment. there was a big debate. they said wait a second here. we can fix this provision via an amendment, they said, but they were wrong. when the dust settled, we were left with a senate bill that allows federal fund of abortion. the house is now being asked to vote on the senate bill. you see, that is going to be the pathway. vote on the senate bill so any fix on other provisions can come

through a reconciliation side war. now, korgs national right to life committee, the senate bill is -- and i'm quoting their language -- the most pro-abortion single piece of legislation that has ever come to the house floor for a vote since roe v. wade. unquote. they go on to warn -- and i'm quoting -- "any house member who votes for the senate bill is casting a career-defining pro-abortion vote." unquote. there is talk that democrat leaders might try to appease pro-life house members by promising to change the senate bill through a separate bill or the reconciliation sidecar that i mentioned. i urge pro-life supporters and

pro-life house members to think through this very, very carefully. don't be food. don't be lulled into thinking that there are 60 votes in the is that senate that will somehow rescue the situation. there are not. you don't have to take my word for it. it's in black and white in the "congressional record." it's the same situation we faced in november. the senate specific economy rejected the amendment that would have blocked federal funding for abortion. nothing -- nothing -- has changed to suggest the senate would have anywhere near 60 votes to support it now. it was recently reported that some in the pro-life community support adding pro-life language in the reconciliation sidecar or maybe in a separate bill, with

the hope and the promise that somehow the senate will swoop in and waive the rules and keep that language there. let me be abundantly clear, as much as i might want that to happen, it won't happen here, as demonstrated by november's vote. so if the senate rejects it again, the language in the senate bill would become law. current law would be reversed and taxpayer dollars would in fact fund abortions. it was recently a column in "the washington post." it issued warning to pro-life democrats to be wary of this strategy. and i'm quoting again: "the only way they can ensure that the abortion language and other provisions they oppose are eliminated is to reject

reconciliation entirely and demand that the house and the senate start over with clean legislation." so, mr. president, i come to the senate floor again to encourage my pro-life colleagues in the house to recognize the reality here in the senate. i tell them what they know already, and that many innocent lives are depending upon their courage. this issue should not be an issue of political gamesmanship, especially when the game is so rigged against pro-lifers. this is an issue of conscience. on this one, you are pro-life or you are not. agreeing to a strategy that is guaranteed to fail, one that has failed already in this health

care debate in november, in my judgment, is not leadership at all. it's surrendering your values. i leave the floor today, mr. president, and i pray that my house colleagues will have the wisdom to understand this in their decision making. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. spter: m president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. specter: mr. president, i have sought recognition to talk about two subjects. first, an amendment filed by senator rockefeller. amendment 3371, amendment to number 3336, cosponsored by senator hatch, senator baucus, senator casey, senator bayh, and

myself. this amendment would extend the steel industry fuel tax credit and make minor technical corrections to ensure that the steel industry will continue to recycle the hazardous waste called coal-waste sludge. the recycling process which converts coal steel to sludge eliminates a hazardous waste, ends the need to landfill or incarcerate the waste, displaces fuel from the coking process and increases the efficiency of coke making. this recycling process makes the production of coke more efficient and cost effective. additionally this will create jobs across the country and preserve thousands of feel-making jobs in economically

hard-hit states. the technical corrections made by this amendment cover minor issues, such as, who has title to the coal in the few minutes before it enters the coke ovens and if a municipal percentage of the feedstock is pure coal for a material called petco. the extension after tax credit and these minor technical corrections will ensure in this credit can actually be use bid processors in the steel industry. i'm advised that all of the integrated steel companies and the representatives of their workers support this provision, which is a rarity in any industry. we have been working for nearly a decade to ensure the widespread use of this technology in coke offense acows the country. across pennsylvania coke offense

continue to be used as the engine that drives the american industrial machine. i have long been committed to ensuring that we use the cleanest and most efficient method for making steel, finance this case, the coke that is the ingredient in the steel-making process. this is an extender right in line with the rest of the legislation. an extender which would save many jobs and add many more jobs, so it is right in line with what we are syncing to accomplish. mr. president, i ask that the remarks i made appear under a separate -- a separate caption of the steel industry fuel tax credit. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: and i'm not going to speak about the subject of gridlock which confronts this body and the use of the reconciliation process to enact

comprehensive health care reform. we have seen an extraordinary display of gridlock evidenced at the present time. we have some 30 judicial nominees which are pending. and i ask consent that this list be included in the record following my statement. we have some 64 executive branch nominees which are now pending. and i ask this list be included in the record following my statement. we have some 13 ambassadorial positions pending. only one of which i'm advised is controversial. and i ask that this statement be included in the record following my statement. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: on many occasions

the majority leader has been compelled to file a cloture petition, which is well known on this senate floor. i don't believe it even has to be explained to c-span viewers. even though it is technical and arcane, but it has been used so often. but in the case, if anyone new is watching c-span2, or i should say in case anybody is watching c-span2, just a word of explanation. if a senator places a hold on a nomination, it compels the majority leader to -- that is a signal for a filibuster. unfortunately, we don't have filibusters. i've been in the senate now since being elected in 190 -- and 1980 and been a party to only one real filibuster.

had we utilized that procedure, perhaps there had be fewer holds and fewer views to filibusters. many had to argue, as senator you thisman did -- thurmond did historically for 26 hours. when the majority leader is compelled to file a cloture motion, and then there are 30 hours where the senate can take no additional business. the two lights are on. it's a quorum call and it is a colossal waste of time. i'm going to recite the facts in some five of these cloture petitions to demonstrate there never really was a controversy. christopher hill, ambassador to the republic of iraq, had a cloture vote. his vote was 23-17.

robert m. groves of michigan, the director of the census, cloture vote was 76-15. not really a contest there at all. nobody seriously contested his confirmation. david hamilton, judge of the seventh circuit, 70 yeas, 29 nays. xoarp filed on -- cloture petition filed on martha m. johnson to be administrator of general services. that was 82-16. the nomination of barbara keenan to be a circuit judge in the fourth circuit, 99-0. i ask consent that the details of these cloture motions an confirmations -- and confirmations be included in the record. the stage is now set where we

have gridlock on the issue of comprehensive health care reform. and in this situation we have had the bills pass by both the house and senate. and we're now looking to use reconciliation, a procedure which has been employed some 22 times in analogous circumstances, ill husband triive of the analogous circumstances is the medicare advantage, the passage of koab, a the passage of schip, the

passage of the welfare reform bill in 1996. in a learned article in the -- in th the "new england journal f medicine," dr. henry aron, an expert on budgetary matters had this to say -- "cloture can be used to implement instructions contained in the budget resolution relating to taxes or expenditures. congress created reconciliation procedures to deal with precisely this sort of situation, referring to what we have with the senate passed bill and the house passed bill. the 2009 budget resolution instructed both houses of congress to enact health care reform. the house and the senate have passed similar, but not identical bills. since both houses have acted, but some work remains to be done

to align the two bills, using reconciliation to implement the instructions in the budget resolution follows established congressage procedure." i ask consent, mr. president, that the full text of this article be included in the record following my statement. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: so what we have here, essentially, is gridlock created by the composition of the two houses of congress. we have a situation where not one member of the other side of the aisle voted in favor of the health care bill. in the house of representatives the vote was 176-1. that is among the 177 republicans voting only one out of 177 in the house. hard to say a more precise

definition of gridlock than what appears here. it would be my hope that we would be able to resolve the issue without resorting to -- to reconciliation. if there's any doubt about the procedure, our institutional integrity would be enhanced without -- without going in that direction. but if you have to fight fire with fire, and if it is legitimate, and since it is a legitimate means, then we can use it. five years ago in 2005, the senate faced a somewhat similar situation when the rules were reversed. when it was the democrats filibustering the judicial nominees of president bush. and we find that so often that it depends on whose ox is being

gored as to who takes the position. some of the objections on reconciliation on comprehensive health care reform have filled the congressional record with statements in favor of using reconciliation in analogous circumstances that would help their cause. in the year 2000, it was the democrats stymieing republican judicial nominees. during the clinton administration, it was exactly reversed. it was the republicans stymieing the clinton nominees. in 2005 we were able to work out the controversy. we were able to confirm some of the judges. some of the judges were withdrawn and we did not move what was called the nuclear option which would have confirmed judges by 51 votes. and the procedural integrity of

the senate is really important. without going into great detail, it was the senate which saved the independence of the federal judiciary when the senate acquitted the supreme court justice chase in 1805. it was the senate which preserved the power of the presidency on the impeachment proceeding of andrew johnson in 1868. congress sought to have limited president's power to discharge a cabinet officer in absence of approval of the senate. well, the senate has to confirm, but the senate doesn't have standing to stop the president from terminating the services of the cabinet officer. and there the senate saved it through the courageous vote of a single senator, a kansasan, i'd like to mention, being one originally myself. so it would be fine if we could find some way to solve the

problem. but absent that, this senate reconciliation procedure is entirely appropriate. we have gotten much more deeply involved in the research and analysis as this issue has come to the floor on comprehensive health insurance. comprehensive health coverage. the gridlock that faces the senate and country today has profound implications beyond the -- the legislation itself. it's hard to find something more important than ensure -- insuring the millions of americans now not covered. hard to find something more important than stopping the escalating cost of health insurance, driving many people to be uninsured and raising the prices for small business where it cannot be afforded. but the fact is that this gridlock is threatening the

capacity in this country to govern. really threatening the capacity to govern. secretary of state hillary clinton was before the appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations, and i asked her about this issue. i asked her about the president -- quote -- -- not being able to project the kind of stature and power of a year ago because he is really hamstrung by congress, and it has an impact on foreign policy which we really ought to do everything we can not to have partisan influence. secretary of state clinton replied as follows." senator, i think there is certainly a perception that i encounter in representing our country around the world that supports your characterization. people don't understand the way our system operates, and they just don't get it. their view does color whether

the united states is in a position, not just as president, but our country is in a position going forward to demonstrate the kind of unity and strength and effectiveness that i think we have to in this very complex and dangerous world. "she continued a little later --" we have to be attuned to how the rest of the world sees the functioning of our government because it is an asset. it may be an intangible asset, but it is an asset of great importance, and as we sell democracy, and we're the lead democracy in the world, i want people to know that we have checks and balances, but we also have the capacity to move, too." so that what we really find here is a diminution of the authority and stature of the president, a diminution of the authority and

stature of the presidency, and ultimately a diminution and reduction in the stature of our country and able to deal with these problems. so it would be my hope that we could yet resolve this issue with a little bipartisanship. it wouldn't take a whole lot, but at the moment there is none. with 40 senators voting no, all of those on the other side of the aisle, 176 out of 177 republicans in the house voting no. that simply is no way to govern. i thank the chair and yield the floor. mr. kyl: mr. preside? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: mr. president, i opened the newspaper, "the new york times," on sunday morning and was surprised -- shocked,

really -- at a full-page advertisement that i saw. it had a big headline that said "what will it be, mr. president? change or more of the same." and then it had four photographs or artists' rendering. the first one was of president barack obama. it gradually morphed from barack obama into george w. bush so that the last in the frame of four was clearly a likeness of president george w. bush. this was an advertisement paid for by the american civil liberties union, the aclu, and i don't know what surprised me more, whether it was the audacity and the blatant partisanship of the ad or its ignorance and misrepresentation of the law. either way, it deserves some comment today. the essence of the ad was to

obviously try to put some pressure on president obama not to change his initial decision to transfer the trial of khalid sheikh muhammad to the article 3 court back to a military commission where it had originally been. the ad makes the point bem obama vowed to change bush-cheney policies and, i'm quoting now, " restore america's values of justice and due process." of course, those values didn't exist under the bush administration, according to the aclu. they then say that they are shocked and concerned that the president is considering changing the 9/11 defendants' trials from criminal court back to military commissions. they say that our criminal justice system will resolve the cases more quickly and more credibly than the military commissions will.

that's a matter of dispute which i will get back to in just a moment. but then there is this sentence ." president obama can vigorously prosecute terrorists and keep us safe without violating our constitution." the implication, of course, being if you go to military commission, you're violating the constitution. now, if that's what they mean to convey -- and it's clear that they do -- the writers of this ad are obviously intentionally misrepresenting the law. the united states supreme court has upheld military commissions. go back to the 1950's case of johnson versus eisentreger involving german war prisoners. the current u.s. supreme court in the hamdan decision made it clear that the president with authority from congress could establish military commissions to try the very people we're talking about here, thesis lambist terrorists. and indeed, the president came

to congress and with changes from the administration recommended by the justice department congress passed the military commissions act of 2006. that act is available to try many of these same stifts. and indeed, the attorney general has made it clear that there are four categories of these terrorists held at gitmo. they want to try to release some of them back to their country of origin. they believe that some of them should be tried in article 3 courts. that's like the federal district court in manhattan. others of them should be tried before the military commissions that the aclu seems to think would violate due process. and finally, that they intend to hold some of them for the duration of the conflict, which is also authorized. so here you have one of the -- at least i thought pre-eminent legal authorities in the country. granted, they always seem to take the side of the little guy

without misrepresentation or the person who is not looked upon with great favor in society who needs legal representation frequently to represent cases that represent different points of view. certainly performing a service to our legal community over the years, most people i think would acknowledge, but now they have turned into a blatant, partisan political entity that i think can have no more credibility in court for both reasons. first, because of the nature of this morphing president obama's face into president george w. bush's face and talking about changing the bush-cheney policies which obviously they believe do not represent america's values of justice and due process. contending that you have to go to article 3 courts to try these people or else you're violating our constitution. and the final conclusion here,

the president must decide whether he will keep a solemn promise to restore our constitution and due process or ignore his vow and continue the bush-cheney policies, which in their view i gather means not having constitutional rights and due process. now, again, this administration helped the congress write the military commission's law. that law is in effect today. the administration intends to try many of these same terrorists before those military commissions. the constitutionality of military commissions has been upheld in the past. the constitutionality of the president and the congress doing so in the future was act nodged by the supreme court in the hamdan case. no court has ruled that the military commissions that were thus created in the 2006 act would, as the aclu suggests,

violate our constitution or due process. so what exactly is the aclu talking about here? more over -- i said i would get back to it -- the ad suggests that the criminal justice system, meaning the article 3 courts, would resolve these cases more credibly than the military commissions. absolutely false. demonstrably false. khalid sheikh muhammad, the poseter child here, the mastermind of 9/11, was before the military commission at guantanamo, and he said he wanted to plead guilty in the military commission. that case could have been over with had his guilty plea been accepted. i can't think of a quicker and more successful outcome than accepting the guilty plea of khalid sheikh muhammad. when the attorney general came before the judiciary committee

and hemmed and hawaiied about -- and hawed about what his reason was for moving this trial to the manhattan federal district court, he basically settled on the proposition that it would help a more sure way to gain a conviction. i asked him, mr. attorney general, this defendant has agreed to plead guilty before the military commission. how much surer of a conviction do you get than that? well, the attorney general said he wasn't sure that he still wanted to plead, but he also assured us, pursuant to question one that my colleagues asked, what would happen if for some reason the court decided to let him go? oh, the attorney general said failure of conviction is not an option. in other words, he will be convicted, and both he and the president have talked about execution. now, if the aclu and the administration is so intent on

showing off the great american judicial system which presumes innocence over guilt and it is literally unethical for prosecutors to go out before the public and guarantee the conviction and prosecution -- or excuse me. the conviction and execution of a defendant, then it seems to me to be rather odd that this attorney general would say oh, failure is not an option. he will be convicted, and my inference, he will be executed by our wonderful article 3 courts which, of course, presume innocence. how the aclu can say that he would be more quickly and more credibly treated than through military commissions is beyond me after these particular statements. so i go back to my original perplex i don't know. as -- perplexion. i don't know whether i should be

more surprised by the audacity of this organization with a blatantly partisan political ad, obviously highly critical of the bush-cheney administration, implying that it did not believe in america's values of justice and due process, or by the ignorance and misrepresentation of the law by the aclu. now, they have got smart lawyers so i assume it's not ignorance, but they are clearly misleading anyone who reads this ad in suggesting both that military commissions would noter pursuant to the constitution or due process, but would rather be a continuation of bush-cheney policies. bear in mind that the new military commissions act of 2006 is not a bush-cheney military commission. this is a current u.s. congress-obama administration military commission law, signed into law by president barack

obama. so when we say -- when the aclu says that this would -- that prosecuting them in the article 3 courts would keep us safe without violating our constitution, one has to assume that they believe that the military commissions act would be violative of the united states constitution, and that is incorrect. mr. president, it's unclear to me what is gained by politicizing this issue. my colleague lindsey graham has talked about the idea of some kind of a bipartisan arrangement whereby the president will acknowledge the will of the american people, which is very strongly against trying these terrorists in the article 3 courts and in favor of trying them in the military commissions, and it seems to me that there is sufficient understanding. the administration certainly

agrees with the military commissions act. it has said that it would use that act to try some of these terrorists. it doesn't believe that that act represents an unconstitutional approach to dealing with these people. and according to public opinion surveys, american public opinion is very strongly of the view that these cases should be tried before military commissions. that being the case, it seems to me there is an opportunity here for us not to try to make this a partisan issue but to try to follow what the american people really believe should be the case here, that these cases can and should be tried before military commissions, when appropriate. that there is also a place for them to be tried before article 3 courts, that some of them potentially can be returned to their country of origin, although that represents a significant danger, considering the fact that about 20% of them return to the battlefield to fight our forces, or that there is a category that can't be tried in either article 3 courts or before military commissions. it seems to me that we can have

a legitimate discussion of this, that the law that the previous president signed into law that represents the point of view of both democrats and republicans that allow for military commissions can be used, that the president would be well within his rights to use military commissions, that it would comport with the law as acknowledged by the united states attorney general and would reflect the views of the american people that it is important that these terrorists be treated first and foremost as enemy -- enemies of the united states and only if appropriate in article 3 courts as common criminals. and finally, the last point i would make, to some extent the location of the trial is a lot less important than the primary objective when an enemy terrorist is captured and that is to get intelligence. i think this is what really upset the american people, when

the first thing that happened after 50 minutes of questioning of the so-called christmas day bomber was that he was read his miranda rights and he stopped providing intelligence to those who were interrogating him. subsequently that intelligence interrogation has resumed but we'll never know what kind of realtime intelligence was lost as a result of the reading of miranda rights. when you try people in article 3 courts, you're going to have to quickly provide these miranda rights and that ordinarily will mean that you give up importan important -- potentially give up important intelligence that you could gain by interrogating the individual. now, it is not the case that necessarily you would be for -- that you would not -- you would be foreclosed from trying the individual in article 3 court because you can rely on something other than the confession of the individual to gain his conviction. in the case of the would-be bomber on christmas day, there was plenty of physical evidence. he was burned badly, there were eyewitnesses, and you didn't

need a confession of the individual. so the measure ran dieing in that -- mirandizing in that case was largely irrelevant. but the point being what we ought to be doing is getting the intelligence first and then deciding what is the appropriate court in which to try that individual. that in many cases, that will be military commissions. and that an organization that has studied the history of the aclu should appreciate the fact that military commissions are constitutional, they do not violate due process rights and that a defendant like khalid sheikh mohammed could be tried before a military commission in a perfectly appropriate and constitutional way and that it takes nothing away from our article 3 court system or from president obama's leadership as president of the united states to hold those trials of this kind of individual in the military commissions. mr. president, to describe this advertisement, let me ask unanimous consent that a fox

news article dated march 7 be printed in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: mr. president, thank you. i rise today to commend the communities of the minnesota's red river valley for their extraordinary flood mitigation efforts this year. spring flooding in the red river valley is an enormous challenge to my constituents in moorexphed in surrounding communitiemoorexn surrounding communities and in communities drownstream. last year these communities experienced record flooding resulting in over 40 feet of water filling the valley. the families of the red river valley saw severe overland flooding resulting in the devastation of their homes, road closures and the cutting off of transportation in and out of the

area. this year, the red river valley is getting ready for what is again forecast to be a major flood. right now the national weather service is forecasting a 90% chance of major flooding of over 35 feet. i spent this past weekend in moorhead, minnesota, and surrounding communities and communities downstream, meeting with local leaders and talking to folks on the ground getting ready for the flooding. their flood preparation efforts this year are truly impressive. the city of moorhead in clay county have been acquiring houses in the floodplain and moving them out of harm's way. as a result, moorhead is going to need one-third fewer sandbags this year compared to last year. now, volunteers are already at work sandbagging, getting ready

to fortify the levees. i went to the moorhead facility building this weekend to bag sandbags. you do that inside. these things can't -- you can't freeze -- the can't bags can't freeze. it would be like -- it would be like stacking frozen turkeys. you just -- they have to be unfrozen when you stack them. the sense of community solidarity in tackling this challenge is incredible, and i was struck by how much the community has unified once again around preparing for these floods. and it was fun. so i would urge folks in the area to go down to the moorhead facility building in the next few days and weeks and -- and sandbag. now, what i took away from being there this weekend and from talking to local leaders and community members is that they're doing all that they can

to prepare for these floods with the resources that they have. but they need our help here in congress. i am determined to make sure that we are doing all that we can on a federal level to help these communities through the next few months. right now, congress needs to appropriate supplemental funding for fema's disaster relief fund. fema said that they are reserving their remaining disaster relief funds for immediate needs until we appropriate this supplemental funding, yet the longer we wait, the longer communities in the red river valley have to wait on important flood mitigation efforts, like removing the remaining homes from the floodplain. i have contacted the fema administrator urging him to exhaust all available options while congress approves the president's request of $5.1 billion in supplemental funding for the disaster relief

fund. i stand ready to support chairman inouye in any of his efforts on this or any other bill on the floor to approve these $5.1 billion in supplemental funding. once again, i commend the communities in minnesota's red river valley for their flood mitigation preparations for this year. as the ice melts and the water rises, i will continue to fight to get federal funding out to these communities, make sure we're doing all that we can to support them in their flood preparations and in their recovery over the coming months. thank you, mr. president, and i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning busiss i csed and under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 4213, which the clerk will

report. the clerk: h.r. 4213, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions and for other purposes. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, we are now on our sixth day of consideration of this important legislation to create jobs and extend vital safety net in tax provisions. this legislation would prevent millions of americans from falling through the safety net. it would put cash into the hands of americans who would spend it quickly, boosting the economy, and it would extend critical programs and tax incentives that help create jobs. we've had a productive week on the bill last week. by my count, the senate has considered 29 amendments on this bill, we've conducted 10 roll call votes. as i counted, there are nine amendments pending. those amendments are the

underlying substitute amendment, the murray-kerry amendment on the tanf emergency fund and summer employment for youth, the coburn amendment on transparen transparency, the webb amendment on executive bonuses, the feingold-coburn amendment rescinding unused transportation earmarks, an amendment by senator reid of nevada on geothermal receipts, a mccain amendment on the use of reconciliation to change medicare, the lincoln amendment on disaster assistance, and the isakson amendment on pension funding. on friday, we reached a unanimous consent agreement that after the senate resumes consideration of the bill tomorrow, we will conduct up to four roll call votes in relation to the following amendments. first, the side-by-side a.m. to the coburn amendment -- side-by-sied amendment to the coburn amendment on transparency. second, the coburn amendment. third, the murray amendment on

youth jobs. and, fourth, the side-by-side amendment to the murray amendment. so senators should be aware that we will have up to four roll call votes at about 10:15 tomorrow morning. we further agreed that at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow, the senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment, and we hope that we might conclude action on the bill thereafter. today we'll consider in due process cleared amendments throughout the day, and i thank all senators for their cooperation. mr. president, i suggest -- no, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: ask permission to speak as if in morning business for up to six minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: mr. president, i rise today and while i'm speaking as if in morning business, it's actually in support of the legislation that the chairman of the finance committee talked about, just talking about it from a slightly

different direction. we've spent a lot of time talking in this body about the -- the necessity for us to focus on jobs and how americans feel about that seven for jobs. we read about unemployment numbers at 9.7%, and while we -- we say with some relief that the numbers didn't pop up during february, those numbers are still way, way too high. i had a personal experience that i wasn't planning on speaking on the floor but i wanted to share with my colleagues and others in the hall, an event that happen happened -- it's actually still happening -- about 45 minutes south of this chamber. my office had decided to sponsor a jobs fair, where we would bring together more than 30 federal agencies and we located this jobs fair down 45 minutes, as i mentioned, south of here at the university of mary washington, at their stafford campus. for those who don't follow all

the ins and outs of northern virginia, we are blessed in northern virginia and virginia overall with actually a rather low unemployment rate. statewide, our unemployment is about 7% and in northern virginia, our numbers are even much, much lower than that. as i mentioned, as we put together this jobs fair, not unlike, i'm sure, what the chair has done or other senators have done, we were well represented with over 30 federal agencies from t.s.a. to the peace corps to the fish and wildlife service. we put out the word, not knowing exactly what kind of response we'd get. this is my first jobs fair i've hosted as a u.s. senator. and at first we were a little worried last week -- last wednesday, we had only had about 75 rsvp's for this jobs fair on this college campus south of washington. but by friday night, we'd had nearly 3,000 folks sign up. by yesterday afternoon, we realized, oh, my gosh, our numbers were topping out above 5,000. we were warning people that

perhaps all the accommodations we put in place weren't ready to handle this many folks and we extended the hours of the jobs fair from 12:00 noon to actually 4:00 today. when our staffs started showing up this morning about 6:30 or 7:00, there were 500 people waiting in their cars, many of them who'd been sleeping there for hours. by 9:00, when the jobs fair was supposed to start, 3,000 people were in line. i showed up there about 9:30 and, regrettably, before 12:00 noon, we had topped out over 5,000, probably closer to,000 with folks -- to 7,000 with folks clogging the roads trying to come to this jobs fair in stafford county, virginia. unfortunately, we had to cut it off at that point and put out the word that we would try to have another jobs fair with these federal agencies and some private-sector partners within the next few weeks. the response was overwhelming.

as i mentioned earlier, i spent about an hour simply going up and down the line of folks who were waiting. many of these folks were people who had graduate degrees, almost all of them had college degrees. they looked like any other kind of work force we'd see crossing any parts of our nation's capital today. i heard stories after stories of folks who'd never, ever expected to show up at a federal job fa fair. folks who never, ever expected to see their lives turned topsy-turvy by unemployment, or by folks who were still unable to change jobs because of their constraints on health care. none of these folks were looking for a handout, they were just looking for that opportunity to talk to some of the 35-plus representatives from feferl agencies -- from federal agencies about the possibilities of getting a job. all they wanted to do was try to do a better job for themselves and for their families. so as we return to debate on the so-called tax extender bill and

when we work, and i know i have with the presiding officer on efforts to kind of free up credit for small business owne owners, or when we talk about how we can provide other kind of incentives to the private sector to jump-start the economy, because while it was great to provide the possibility of these jobs in the public sector, the vast majority of jobs will and should be created in the private sector as we think about this piece of legislation right now, we make sure that our tax code is supportive enough of those privelgt efforts. i saw the reason for these efforts this morning in the thousands and one of the most prosperous parts of our whole country, here in northern virginia. came back more charged up an ever that what we do here is terribly important, that the folks there in that line didn't understand rules about filibusters or holds or all the other procedural back-and-forth that sometimes seems to dominate

the floor here. what they wanted us to do is put our partisanship aside and get the job done of trying to create more and more jobs all across this country. it's my hope in the coming weeks when we have this next jobs fair, we'll -- i'm sure we'll probably have the same kind of response. i look forward to the day hopefully in the not-too-distant future when we have a jobs fair, if not whether it be in virginia or in minnesota, that we get a few folks, but that we don't get overwhelmed with the kind of literally unprecedented numbers of the 7,000 folks we see today. i thank the president -- plfer, and i yield the floor. -- presiding officer, and i yeefd. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: .

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask consent that i be allowed to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, that great philosopher, observer of the national scene, yogi berra once said, you better be very careful if you don't know where you're going because you may not get there. mr. president, a bit of that policy is now the perception of

president obama's manned space program. that there's a concern that the administration doesn't know where they're going and they may not get there. now, i said perception, mr. president. because in reality the president has laid out a visionary manned space program. but the way the administration rolled out the space program, much to the chagrin of a number of us that were trying to get through to the white house about the way that they could roll it out, it was rolled out as a part of the budget and left for people to draw their own conclusions. and i can tell you, mr. president, that among the aerospace and space community,

particularly in areas like houston, at the johnson space center, huntsville, at the marshall space flight senator, and florida, at the kennedy space center, i can tell you that the perception is that the president has killed the manned space program. well, in fact, mr. president, that's the farthest thing from president obama's mind. he is an enthusiastic fan of the space program. as a matter of fact, you've heard him talk many times about how his little boy, his grandfather, took him to see the return of some of the apollo astronauts coming back from the moon. and when he tells that story, his face just lights up and you can see the enthusiasm that he has. you can see as he interacts by radio with the astronauts on

board the space station and on board the space shuttle, you can see the enthusiasm that he has. unfortunately, some of his advisers have not given him correct information about how to lay out his vision. and so, happily, over the course of the wreaked the president has -- over the course of the weekend, the president has said that he's going to come to florida april the 15th, and he's going to lay out his vision for the space program. now, what is it? well, we can anticipate that the president will say what he already had his administrator at nasa say in our committee hearing last week. and that was the goal is mars. mars is the next logical goal. we were on the moon 40 years

ago. there could well be interim steps on the way to mars. possibly the moon. possibly renedevous and landing on an ateroid and possibly to go to one of the moons of mars before actually going to mars. why? because it would expend a lot less energy to land on a moon of mars and return than it would to go on down to the red planet. the president actually laid out in his proposal to the congress for the budget a robust budget that was a $60 billion increase

for nasa over the course of the next five years. compared to other agencies of the government, nasa did very well. the president also is to be commended in his budget proposal that he said what everybody knew he had to say, which the bush administration had ignored, which was we've got thi this $100 billion asset up there in orbit, called the international space station. we're just completing it now. we're just equipping it now where we can get a crew of several astronauts, not just one, two, or three on board to use it as a national laboratory, which it is technically designated. and what he said was that we're not going to stop it in 2015. we're going to at least carry it

out to 2020. again, mr. president, that was a logical thing that everybody knew, but if you can believe it in the previous administration, it had not been budgeted for to continue beyond 2015, the international space station, which we haven't even completed yet. and of which this last four flights will not only complete the construction, the equipping, but will take up major scientific experiments such as the alpha magnetic spectometer, which if it works, it is going to open up our understanding of the universe and what are the origins of the universe. so the president laid out a

fairly good plan that had some good things in it, but he left himself open to miss interpretation so that not only is there the perception that the president has killed the manned space program, but there is outright hostility toward president obama and his proposals for the nation's human space program. now, what did that occur? well, number one, the president didn't make the declaration. why is that important? because only a president can lead the nation's human space program. and, of course, the best example of that was that after the soviets had surprised us in the 1950's with pu sputnik and then

they surprised us again by putting the first person in orbit, and we didn't even have a rocket that was strong enough to get us into orbit with our little mercury spacecraft. and we had the plan to go into sub orbit with allen shepard and after shepard came back, took that bold stroke of president kennedy to say in nine years we're going to the moon and safely returning. now, that's leadership. that's a declaratory judgment. that's stepping out and being bold. and if we're going to mars, it's going to take the president to say that. and in saying that, not to tell his nasa administrator in the space subcommittee hearing of the united states senate last week that the administrator can say that the goal is mars.

it's got to take the president to say that and he's got set out a specific time frame. it can be approximate, but it has to be a reasonable time frame. and he has to then say to nasa, you figure out the architecture. you set the benchmarks. so is it to go back to the moon for a temporary mission? is it to go to an asteroid, is it to go on to go straight to mars? and then to unleash the creative spirit, the human ingenuity of americans in what we have seen in this extraordinary program that the heartbeat of every american beats a little faster when they see some of the extraordinary heroic

accomplishments that we've had in the american space program. both manned and unmanned. -- unmanned space accomplishments. mr. president, the president let himself be miss interpreted. he said in his budgetary message that he was canceling the constellation program. the constellation program was a program that was announced five or six years ago by president george w. bush, but the bush administration never funded it. in fact, they starved nasa so that the building of the new rocket is not ready when the space shuttle is now being set -- now being set for retirement. now, why is that? well, that decision on the space

shuttle really came as a result of the destruction of colombia over the skies of texas on reentry back in 2002. and the investigation commission headed by a navy admiral named gamon called the gamon commission. otherwise known as the columbia investigation, it's c-a-i-b, colombian investigation board. they said after a decade -- at the end of the decade, if you're going to continue to fly the space shuttle, you're going to have to recertify all of these orbiters that have been going on since the early 1980's. so the decision was made to shut down the space shuttle program

at the end of the last decade, and we find that that shuttle program is, in fact, coming to an end without the new rocket being ready, and therefore you had the angst that is in this aerospace community, this close-knit family called the nasa family that are going to be seeing so many of the men and women that are so dedicated to this program being laid off, because if you're not launching americans on american rockets, then the jobs are not there. unfortunately, those decisions we tried to avert. over and over in the last five or six years here in the senate, this senate has put additional money into the -- into nasa's

exploration program to try to speed the development of the rocket and over and over the previous administration cut us off at the knees, would not support it, and we could not get the votes in the house of representatives to keep that additional money. and as a result, we have a rocket that is just being in its testing stages, a capsule that has not been built, and as the president's advisors looked at it, they saw that it was going to be well on into this decade before it would be ready, so they just up and announced that they're going to cancel this program called constellation which was the development of the aries rocket and the development and construction of a capsule

called orion. but they also said we want the r&d of a heavy-lift vehicle, and there came the disconnect because people who don't understand the space program were making decisions, and i lay it at the feet of some of the folks in office of management and budget, the office of management and budget, if you're going to build a heavy-lift vehicle, the likelihood is you can't do that entirely with liquid rockets. you need solid rockets to propel that massive weight up into low earth orbit. and the solid rockets are what we're testing now, and thus the president allowed his administration to be perceived,

that they were killing the manned space program when, in fact, there is nothing farther from what he intended. so what are we going to do about it? well, let's go back -- let's go back to the announcement made over the weekend. i commend the president, i'm very thankful to the president that he has said he is coming to florida for a major discussion and announcement on the human space program. this will occur april 15. it will occur in florida. i assume it will be at the kennedy space center or somewhere close by, which is the logical place from whence we have sent americans into the cost most. and i think that's a step in the

right direction for the president. but he needs to be prepared with specifics because of the perception that he has killed the manned space program because of the hostility that he has generated because of that perception, the president needs to be prepared with specifics of the goal, the time frame, the benchmarks, the suggested architecture, and how he would take his budget to flesh out moving toward that goal. may i, mr. president, give some suggestions to the president on how he might achieve that? in the first place, there are four additional shuttles manifested to fly, and with

that, the completion and the equipping of the international space station. but, mr. president, there is a fifth shuttle that can fly because the external tank is there. it is referred to as the mission on demand because in effect it's a rescue shuttle to go up if a space shuttle got marooned and rescue them. what about a rescue for the last and the fifth shuttle? well, the risk is mental because the risk would be to the space station, and if the worst happened on launch just like columbia, that a piece of the delicate silicon tiles fell off and knocked a hole in the wing of which they then could not come back into earth without

burning up, then they could take safe sanctuary in the international space station because now it is large enough to accommodate additional crew members until rescue spacecraft could come to rescue them to take them back to earth. so the risk to safety is minimal on a fifth shuttle flight. the president should announce that he is asking nasa to do that fifth flight. by the way, the money is already there, mr. president. if the four flights as scheduled get off between now and the end of the year, september 30, there is the money in the first quarter of fiscal year 2011, there is the money there for an additional flight. so you don't have to go get any

additional money. it's budgeted. the president should announce that. the next thing mr. president of the senate that the president of the united states should do is he should say we're going on a full-scale aggressive research and development program to develop that heavy-lift rocket that's going to get us up in the low earth orbit so that we can assemble things and go to whatever the next station is -- moon, asteroid, moon of mars, and that aggressive r&d effort should be the continued testing of a solid rocket booster not unlike the one that has already been successfully tested. and that concurrent with that, there should be the development of a crew exploration vehicle

otherwise known as a capsule that would carry astronauts up into low earth orbit on this heavy-lift vehicle that would allow us to do the assembly and all the other things that we want to do, and this doesn't have to take away from the president's proposal that commercial companies are encouraged to complete against each other to have a carjacko and human -- to have a cargo and human ferry service to and from the international space station, for that can go on concurrently, although i must say, mr. president, that in a couple of weeks we're having a hearing in our space subcommittee and we are going to look at the commercial rocket competitors

and whether or not they need the the $6 billion that the president has recommended over the next five years in order for them to get humans up and back to and from the international space station. and so the president should then clearly say we're going to do an aggressive r&d effort to build a heavy-lift vehicle. because of the angst among space workers in the middle of a recession, some of whom have already been laid off, others of whom are getting pink slips and others of whom fear for their jobs let us remember that a recession is not a recession if you have been laid off from your job, it's a depression. and the angst of this economic

recession with losing their job and not knowing where to turn elsewhere is among them, and therefore my next recommendation to the president would be that he address those fears. he has already said he wants to spend $2 billion to help the center that's going to be the most impacted. i have had estimates that as the layoff of the shuttle program, it's about 5,000 jobs. the president should address that. he should point out in his budget the $2 billion that he offered to modernize the kennedy space center, how that will affect jobs, and what part of that 5,000 could be ameliorated. then the president should say -- and it is my humble, respectful

suggestion that there are plenty of other jobs in the aerospace community, and he is going to try to bring them into places like the kennedy space center that are going to feel the effects of these layoffs to help people on a temporary basis until we can get back into the business of launching humans. and i would humbly, respectfully request that the president say the commercial boys that are bidding in a competition to be the service to and from the international space station has got to hire if they are the successful bidders, those people who are so skilled and who have not missed a beat in all these

lo these many years, of which the american space program has been so tremendously successful. that's the next thing that i would respectfully ask the president to do. but then, mr. president, i think the president has to directly confront his critics. knows -- those who in political parlance are taking political cheap shots at the president, and he has left himself open to those cheap shots that he would directly confront them head on and say the american space program is not a partisan program, it's not an ideological program, it is an american

program, and it has always been run that way, and that's the way he should say he is going to continue to run that program. and that he should get those people to quiet them down, get in the harness and let's all pull together what we all want to do, which is go out there and explore the heavens. by the way, on that fifth shuttle flight, some people have asked me, well, what can it do? what's its function? other than just flying an additional shuttle? well, there is a lot of equipment, a lot of experiments that can be put in it, and it can take up an additional component, attach it to the space station and add volume to an already expansive space station that will allow us to do

experimentation in the zero gravity of orbit for years and years to come. so for all of these reasons, i am so grateful to the president that he has stepped forth and said he's going to come and address this issue. i would respectfully request that he consider some of the suggestions that i've made. at the end of the day, it's what he wants, it's what the nation wants, because every american heart beats a little bit quicker when they happen to witness the extraordinary feats of americans in space and the peeling back of the frontiers and the new knowledge and scientific results that we have of the spinoffs as

we develop these incredible flying machines. mr. president, it is an urgent plea that i make to the white house. listen to some advice. stop listening just to the budget boys in o.m.b. listen to the cries of an american people who once again want to be challenged and inspired like president john f. kennedy did to the nation and the nation came together and did what was considered to be almost the impossible. it wasn't impossible. it was extraordinary and it was an american achievement. mr. president, i yield the floor

and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: